CCPR/C/127/D/2912/2016 who had been killed. The authors’ appeal to the Khamovniki district court in Moscow was dismissed on 24 October 2008 and their subsequent appeal to the Moscow City Court was rejected on 25 November 2008. 2.15 On 4 May 2008, the authors appealed the decision of the Chief Military Prosecutor to end the Katyn investigation to the Khamovniki district court in Moscow. They requested the court to find the decision unlawful and to grant them the status of victims in the Katyn criminal case. The appeal was rejected by the Khamovniki district court on 5 June 2008. The authors appealed this decision to the criminal division of the Moscow City Court, which on 7 July 2008, upheld the decision of the district court. The authors filed an appeal to the Moscow Circuit Military Court on 20 August 2008. On 14 October 2008, the Moscow Circuit Military Court rejected their appeal. On 29 January 2009, the authors’ cassation appeal to the Military Board of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation was rejected. In the proceedings on the discontinuance of the investigation, the authorities held that there existed no evidence that the authors’ relatives, after being dispatched from the camps, had been executed, since their remains were not among the 22 bodies identified in 1991. In such circumstances, there were no grounds for recognizing the authors as victims in the investigation and giving them access to the documents relating to the proceedings and the investigation. Referring to the letter from the Office of the Chief Military Prosecutor, dated 21 April 1998, the courts stated that the confirmation of the execution of W.W. was issued in an ongoing criminal case and could not be confirmed by the final investigation. 2.16 Having exhausted domestic remedies, the authors lodged an application with the European Court of Human Rights. 2 On 16 April 2012, the Court rendered its judgment. It found that it lacked competence ratione temporis to consider the authors’ complaint under article 2 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (effective investigation into the massacre) but held that there had been a violation of article 3 of the Convention with regard to the rights of four of the authors (degrading and inhuman treatment). The case was subsequently referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court, which rendered its judgment on 21 October 2013. The Grand Chamber found that it was not competent ratione temporis to examine the complaint under article 2 and that there had been no violation of article 3 of the Convention. The complaint 3.1 The authors claim that the Russian investigation into the Katyn massacre did not meet the basic requirements of an effective investigation, in violation of their rights under article 2 (3), read with article 6 of the Covenant. They claim that they were not given victim status during the investigation and, as a result, could not participate in the proceedings; that evidence was not collected from them; that basic evidentiary measures, such as excavations, were not undertaken; and that the legal classification given to the massacre was inadequate. The authors submit that the complaint is admissible ratione temporis, as the Russian authorities had a continuing obligation to investigate the massacre and the non-fulfilment of this procedural obligation had taken place in the post-ratification period. 3.2 The authors also claim that the treatment they received from the Russian authorities amounted to a violation of their rights under article 7 of the Covenant. They note that during the court proceedings, the courts found that what had happened to their relatives had not been established, contrary to previous statements by the Office of the Military Prosecutor in 1998, in which one of the authors had been told that her relative had been executed (see para. 2.13 above) and contrary to the conclusion of the 1943 investigation, which identified two of the authors’ relatives (see para. 2.5 above). They claim that their relatives, presumed dead, became “disappeared” after the decisions of the authorities of the State party had been issued. They claim that such statements, in denial of historical facts and previous assertions, must be considered as inflicting grave moral pain, anguish and stress on them, which go beyond the emotional distress normally accompanying the killing of a close relative. 3.3 The authors also note that the facts submitted can be interpreted as a violation of articles 14, 17 and 19 of the Covenant. 2 4 See Janowiec and others v. Russia, applications No. 55508/07 and No. 29520/09.