CCPR/C/127/D/2912/2016 killed was degrading and inhuman, in violation of article 7 of the Covenant, and that the investigation carried out by the State party changed the status of their relatives from dead to “disappeared”. The Committee notes that by the time most of the authors requested the rehabilitation of their relatives in 2008, four years after the closing of the investigation into the criminal responsibility against Beria and other NKVD officials, the fact that their relatives were dead was beyond doubt, as most of them would have been more than 100 years old by then, and that the authors themselves insisted in the domestic proceedings that their relatives had been killed in the Katyn massacre. The Committee also notes that the authors have undertaken numerous activities in honour of their relatives, perceiving their killing in the Katyn massacre as an established historical fact. The Committee does not therefore consider the authors’ relatives as persons who were “disappeared” as the result of the State party’s investigation of the massacre. 6.7 While acknowledging the tragedy and pain the authors have lived with for many years after losing their relatives in the Katyn massacre, the Committee notes that the decisions of the authorities of the State party, in the context of the criminal investigation, which did not clarify the exact circumstances of death of their relatives and rejected their rehabilitation requests, were taken more than 60 years after the killings in question and were unlikely to generate genuine uncertainty in the authors’ minds about the fate of their dead relatives. In addition, from the information on file, the Committee is not able to conclude that the manner in which the authors have been treated by the authorities of the State party was manifestly disrespectful or degrading, or otherwise aimed at causing them pain and suffering. In the light of this, the Committee finds the authors’ claim under article 7 of the Covenant inadmissible for lack of substantiation under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 6.8 The Committee also notes the State party’s argument that the authors have not raised their claims under articles 17 and 19 in proceedings in the State party and that the rights of the authors under article 14 were fully respected. The Committee notes the authors’ argument that articles 17 and 19 were raised in their substance in proceedings in the State party and that they maintain their claims under article 14 in relation to a number failures in the legal proceedings in which they participated. The Committee considers, however, that the authors have not provided sufficient information to substantiate their claims under articles 14, 17 and 19, in light of the specific nature of the legal proceedings in question. The Committee therefore finds these claims inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 6.9 In the light of these findings, the Committee does not deem it necessary to consider the rest of the authors’ claims and the State party’s other objections to admissibility. 7. The Committee therefore decides: (a) Protocol; That the communication is inadmissible under articles 1 and 2 of the Optional (b) authors. That the present decision shall be transmitted to the State party and to the 9