CCPR/C/127/D/2912/2016 5.2 The authors submit that the Russian authorities rejected the request for rehabilitation on behalf of 2 Polish prisoners who were among the 22 identified in 1991. The judge of the Khamovniki district court found that a bullet hole in the skull of those people proved only that a firearm had been used against a certain person, but not that the person had been shot dead by State officials or was a victim of political repression. 5.3 The authors stress that the Katyn massacre constituted a war crime and a crime against humanity and is not subject to statutory limitations. The authors thus disagree with the classification of the crime as abuse of power in the decision of 2004 to end the Katyn investigation, as well as with the State party’s argument that the investigation was timebarred. 5.4 Concerning the State party’s statement that the investigation of the Katyn massacre was carried out as a gesture of political goodwill, the authors submit that in Russian law there is no distinction between a criminal investigation and a goodwill investigation. Procedural and material law apply to any investigation in the same manner. They add that when the investigation began in 1990s, some people involved in the Politburo decision to kill the Polish prisoners were still alive and should have been prosecuted. 5.5 The authors insist that the investigation into the Katyn massacre took place after the ratification of the Optional Protocol by the State party and that the procedural obligations relating to the right to life are detachable from the substantive obligations. Thus, the Committee has jurisdiction ratione temporis to consider their claim. 5.6 The authors submit that the classical test used by international bodies to examine the matter of jurisdiction ratione temporis differentiates between the source of right and the source of dispute. The former may precede a given treaty but the latter must be located in the post-ratification period. They allege that the source of right in their submission lies in the Katyn massacre of 1940, but the source of dispute relates to the way in which the investigation was conducted after the Optional Protocol had been ratified by the State party. 5.7 As to the merits of their allegations under article 6, the authors claim that the investigation into the Katyn massacre completely denied established historical facts and derailed expectations based on what had been established earlier. The authors could not have predicted the unexpected outcome of the investigation in 2004, when their relatives again became “disappeared” persons. The State party should thus be stopped from alleging that the authors should have applied for victim status when the investigation was ongoing. 5.8 The authors allege that the domestic courts acted arbitrarily in assessing the evidence submitted by them and rejecting all their motions, in violation of article 14 of the Covenant. 5.9 Under the article 7 claim, the authors add that turning persons who have been killed into “disappeared” persons is unprecedented in international practice. The authors had to wait for 15 years to ask for the rehabilitation of their relatives after the investigation of the massacre was finished. They were then informed that the fate of their relatives was unknown and that they “disappeared” in 1940. The conclusion of the authorities contradicted the established historic facts and constituted a denial of the Katyn massacre. Since a significant proportion of the files of the investigation had been classified, they were prevented from knowing the circumstances of the executions and the background of the massacres. The refusal to consider the applicants’ requests for rehabilitation of their relatives was combined with at least implicit assumptions that there had existed good reasons for the execution. The authors claim that as people in their senior years, they had been exposed to acts resulting in emotional distress, anguish and suffering that reached at least the minimum level of degrading treatment. 5.10 The authors provide information to prove their emotional attachment to their relatives. They wrote articles and books about the Katyn massacre and their relatives; initiated commemoration activities, such as planting oaks for Katyn victims, placing commemorative plaques and naming schools after them; and established the Katyn National Memory Committee and the Federation of Katyn Families, among other actions. 5.11 The authors submit that in the litigation in the Russian Federation they invoked the substance of their claims under articles 17 (protection of good name as part of the right to private life) and 19 (right to receive information). The right to a good memory of their parents was part and parcel of their rehabilitation request. If not rehabilitated, the persons 7