THE HERALD has been vindicated by the Press Complaints Commission over its exclusive report that a baby born to a surrogate mother in America had been brought to Edinburgh to live with the father, a gay man, and his male partner.

The commission not only agreed with the newspaper that the twin issues of surrogacy and homosexual parenting are clear matters of legitimate public interest but stressed The Herald - the first to report the birth - did so ''responsibly and sympathetically.''

The baby's father, Mr William Zachs, had complained that the article in August last year intruded into their privacy in breach of Clause 4 (Privacy) of the Code of Practice.

Mr Zachs further considered the article was the genesis of widespread coverage in other newspapers. He objected that while issues of surrogacy and homosexual parenting might be a matter for public debate, the particulars of the birth were a private matter - with publication not in the public interest.

The commission, in its adjudication yesterday, said the unique circumstances of the case posed complex problems for it to consider.

In doing so, the PCC had judged the complaint solely on its merits and was concerned its adjudication should not be seen as a precedent.

The commission agreed with The Herald that surrogacy and homosexual parenting are clear matters of legitimate public interest, and added: ''It is right - and important - that the press reports and comments on them ... the newspaper was the first to report the birth - and did so responsibly and sympathetically.''

According to the adjudication, the editor had, following the complaint, disagreed that the code had been violated by publishing the men's names and by making reference to Mr Zachs' daughter, because these were facts.

The editor also disagreed with the contention there was no ''public interest'' in publishing the story.

There had been a great deal of public interest in both Britain and the US about such issues - and Mr Zachs had sent out invitations to his family and friends announcing details of the birth to his own circle.

The editor also denied the newspaper was involved ''in any events connected with the complainant's general allegations of press harassment.''

The commission agreed with Mr Zachs that the privacy of all those involved in the story was, in principle, subject to the Code of Practice.

In particular, it considered that privacy should attach to the infant involved as much as to a child or an adult, and went on: ''One of the aspects of privacy is how intrusion into it affects the unfolding lives of those involved, and is therefore arguably all the more important where an infant is concerned.

''Under the code, intrusions into an individual's life are only acceptable where there is a legitimate matter of public interest at stake. In practice, where those directly involved in a contemporary story in effect act to put private information into the public domain, entitlement to privacy is also undermined.''

It was noted that news of the birth was already known in Edinburgh circles. Indeed, it appeared one of those aware of it from first hand had drawn it to the attention of the newspaper.

The commission also noted there was very little information about the birth widely available in the public domain at the time of the article - although one of those involved subsequently co-operated with another publication to put key details there.

The commission considered whether the limited information published by The Herald could realistically be considered private under the code, and publication of it an intrusion into privacy.

It found: ''...publication of news of a birth and of the names of the parents could not in effect be considered such an intrusion.

''Births in any country are recorded in documents which are publicly available - as are the names of the parents of a baby.

''Even without the consent of those involved, the commission found that news of the birth could not therefore realistically have been kept private, especially in view of the public interest involved in the issue.

''Furthermore, the newspaper acted with responsibility and did not publish the forenames of the infant or details of the men's address - which were arguably far more private and, if published, might well have been in breach of the spirit of the code.''

It concluded: ''The commission found, therefore, that the newspaper could not be censured for its reporting when the relatively minor amount of private information it used in its article could not realistically have been kept private if the parents had wanted it so; the complaint of intrusion into privacy under Clause 4 (Privacy) is therefore not upheld.''