CCPR/C/127/D/2912/2016 Optional Protocol) they could have been alive, taking into account their dates of birth and lack of any news from them since the Second World War. In the absence of the primary element, there can be no issues raised under article 7 of the Covenant. 4.10 The State party relies on the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights and submits that there were no “special factors” which could bring the suffering of the authors “a dimension and character distinct from the emotional distress which may be regarded as inevitably caused to relatives of a victim of serious violations of human rights”.3 As for the first factor – the proximity of the family tie – five of the authors were born after the arrest of their relatives. The second factor – the extent to which the family member witnessed the events in question – was absent, because none of the authors saw the events which caused the death of their relatives. The third factor – the involvement of family members in the attempts to obtain information about the disappeared person – was not complied with, since the authors did not participate in the Katyn investigation, did not file motions and did not provide testimonies. Although the investigation was widely publicized in the Russian and Polish media over a period of 14 years, only after it was finished did two of the authors, and then the others, request formal procedural status to be granted. The effect of the fourth factor – the way in which the authorities responded to the enquiries – is lower in the present case, in view of the 50 years that passed between the Katyn events and the opening of the criminal investigation and considering the fact that the authors were not unaware of the fate of their relatives. The actions of the domestic authorities were justified by the fact that the rehabilitation of Polish prisoners was impossible in the absence of any information on the charges against them. The authorities were not obliged to locate the authors and grant them victim status without sufficient evidence, required by a criminal standard of proof, for establishing a causal link between the Katyn events and the death of their relatives. There had been no humiliating treatment in the manner in which the authorities had responded to the authors’ requests. The State party concludes that the authors’ claim under article 7 of the Covenant is unsubstantiated. 4.11 The State party submits that the authors did not bring claims under articles 17 and 19 of the Covenant before the domestic courts and did not substantiate them in their submission to the Committee. Those claims should be considered inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol owing to non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. 4.12 The State party then summarizes in detail the proceedings undertaken by the authors in relation to the rehabilitation of their relatives and concerning the decision to discontinue the investigation and submits that the authors’ claims were duly assessed by the domestic courts and their rights under article 14 of the Covenant were respected. It submits that the Katyn criminal investigation against a number of NKVD officials, charged under article 19317 of the Criminal Code of 1926 for abuse of power, which manifested in the unlawful decisions to execute 14,542 Polish nationals, leading to the death of 1,803 persons (only 22 bodies were identified after exhumation), was ended in 2004 on the basis of article 24 (1) (4) of the Criminal Procedure Code (death of the guilty persons). Other grounds for ending the investigation were article 24 (1) (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (absence of corpus delicti) concerning other persons, and article 24 (1) (1) (lack of crime) concerning the investigation of evidence of genocide. 4.13 In conclusion the State party submits that the authors’ claims under articles 2, 6, 7, 14, 17 and 19 of the Covenant should be considered inadmissible. Their complaint under article 6 should be found inadmissible ratione temporis. The State party asserts that it has not violated the authors’ rights under the Covenant. Authors’ comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 On 8 October 2018, the authors submitted their comments on the State party’s observations. The authors note that what began as a transparent investigation, based on established historical facts, documents and collected evidence (death lists of prisoners of war and prisoners delivered for execution to NKVD sites, exhumation works etc.), ended in secrecy and denial in 2004. People considered to have been killed in 1940 became “disappeared”. The authors reiterate that the names of their relatives are listed on the memorials constructed on burial sites in Katyn in Russia, and Kharkiv in Ukraine. 3 6 See European Court of Human Rights, Gongadze v. Ukraine, application No. 34056/02, para. 184, and Orhan v. Turkey, application No. 25656/94, paras. 357–358.