44
The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights neither the officers nor their relatives were entitled to victim status, which would have given them access to the case files.
99. The failure to inform the applicants of their judicial rights, despite the motions submitted by them, and the failure to formally examine their motion for victim status in accordance with Article 42 of the CPP, prevented their active participation in proceedings and their access to the case files after the preparatory stage of the proceedings was concluded. Thus, the Russian authorities prevented the applicants from exercising their rights at the level of national proceedings.
100. In order for the applicants to be covered by the guarantees of Article 6 it is necessary to
ascertain that the investigation conducted by the Russian authorities affected their civil rights. Accordingly, it is essential to examine their motives for seeking participation in the investigation. The application form indicates that the applicants demanded the possibility of participating in the investigation for the purpose of determining the circumstances of the “savage murder by officers of the Soviet NKVD, in a forest near Kharkov, of officers, including Nawratil and Janowiec” (p. 4 D of the application form). As demonstrated above, the applicants attempted to avail themselves in national proceedings of their judicial rights guaranteed by Russian law in order to obtain credible, honest and official information concerning the death of their relatives, who at the time were under the jurisdiction of the Russian State. Documents conveyed to the applicants in the course of national proceedings contained contradictory information about the fate of their relatives. For that reason it can be ascertained without any doubt that the applicants were motivated by desire to determine the circumstances of death of their relatives. Pursuant to the Court’s case law, an applicant’s motivation is crucially important; Article 6 will not be applicable if the only goal pursued by the applicant is conviction of the accused, and not the protection of, or compensation for violation of the applicant’s civil rights (cf. Sigalas v. Greece, judgment of 22 September 2005, no. 19754/02, § 27-30). In the instant case, it should be stated that the outcome of the proceedings was decisive with regard to a “civil right” of the applicants - their right to obtain information about the circumstances of death and place of burial of their relatives. It should be further underlined that perusal of investigation documents, particularly any preserved evidential materials, such as personal effects of a deceased person, is of enormous emotional importance to relatives. Contradictory information as to whether the authorities had information confirming the death of the relatives, additionally reinforced the applicants’ motivation.
101. In the light of the above, it should be recognized that Article 6 is applicable in the instant case due to the fact that, pursuant to the Court’s case law, cases concerning personal rights have the character of civil cases, regardless of the national proceedings used in the pursuit of their protection (cf. Kuśmierek v. Poland, op.cit., § 48-49; Pieniążek v. Poland, op.cit., § 20).
102. The matter of access to files and the extent of possible participation of the parties and victim’s relatives in preparatory proceedings or the trial itself is regulated by national legislation of the respective countries. The Convention does not introduce uniform standards in this respect, and it is within the competency of the national authorities to regulate the rights granted to parties in the course of proceedings (cf. Rajkowska v. Poland, op.cit.). The requ-