The Katyń crime before the European Court of Human Rights

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights zbiór dokumentów przedłożonych przez Rząd Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej w postępowaniu w sprawie Janowiec i inni p. Rosji documents submitted by the Government of the Republic of Poland in the case Janowiec and Others v. Russia

Warszawa, 2015

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

1

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka zbiór dokumentów przedłożonych przez Rząd Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej w postępowaniu w sprawie Janowiec i inni p. Rosji

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights documents submitted by the Government of the Republic of Poland in the case Janowiec and Others v. Russia

Warszawa, 2015

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

133

Written Submission by the Government of Poland dated 14 April 2009 in the case Janowiec and Trybowski v. Russia I.

INTRODUCTION

1. The Government of the Republic of Poland (“Government”) are honored to submit to the

European Court of Human Rights (“Court”) their observations relating to the application lodged by Mr Jerzy Janowiec and Mr Antoni Trybowski, both Polish citizens. This case derives from an application (No. 55508/07) filed with the European Court of Human Rights on 19 November 2007.

2. The case concerns the following questions: 1.

Assuming that the Court is competent ratione temporis to examine the procedural limb of Article 2 of the Convention in the instant case, was the investigation into the death of the applicants’ relatives carried out by the Russian authorities, adequate and efficient as required by Article 2 of the Convention?

2.

The Government are requested to produce a copy of the decision to discontinue criminal proceedings in the “Katyń” case (No. 159), dated September 21 2004.

3.

Was Article 6 of the Convention applicable in the instant case under its civil or criminal head? Assuming Article 6 was applicable, was it compatible with that provision that the applicants were denied access to the documents concerning the investigation into the death of their relatives?

4.

Were the Russian civil courts able, in the absence of any results from the criminal investigation in the “Katyń” case (No. 159), to consider the merits of a civil claim stemming out of the execution of the applicants’ relatives? If not, was it compatible with Article 13 of the Convention?

3. The Government of the Republic of Poland submit to the European Court of Human Rights that application no. 55508/07 should be admitted, in accordance with Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention.

4. In any case, the Government allege that Article 2 of the Convention under its procedural limb, along with Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention, were all violated in the instant case.

II. THE FACTS A. Relevant Domestic Law 5. In 2003, Józef Szewczyk, a lawyer retained by the applicants, filed with the Chief Military

Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation a motion for access to “any documents connected with the last moments of life“ of the officers Antoni Nawratil, Andrzej Janowiec and Stefan Greczyn, taken prisoner by the Red Army in September 1939. The counsel for the applicants noted that he had not found any such documents in the 98 volumes of the investigation conveyed to the Polish side by the Chief Military Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation in the years 1990-2004.

134

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka

6. On 23 June 2003 the Chief Military Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation respon-

ded to the motion of the applicants’ counsel. The Prosecutor’s Office affirmed that the applicants’ counsel had asked it to hand over documents concerning Antoni Nawratil, Andrzej Janowiec and Stefan Greczyn, who “were shot by organs of the NKVD of the USSR”. Further, the Prosecutor’s Office advised that “in the course of investigation No. 159 exhumation works were conducted in the districts of Kharkov, Tver and Smolensk, during which the remains of 200 Polish citizens were secured. Some of them were identified on the basis of numerous personal effects and ID tags. Among them, the remains of the Polish officers identified by the applicants were also identified. Nawratil and Janowiec are buried in the vicinity of Kharkov…”. Further, the Prosecutors’ Office advised that it did not have at its disposal any other documents about the Polish officers in question, since these had been destroyed. The content of the letter indicated that no attachments – such as copies of documents concerning Antoni Nawratil and Andrzej Janowiec – had been appended to it.

7. On 4 December 2004 the applicants’ counsel submitted a motion to the Chief Military Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation, asking that it:

– recognize that the relatives of Antoni Nawratil and Andrzej Janowiec possessed victims’ rights in the framework of investigation No. 159; – convey to the office of the counsel a copy of the decision to open investigation No. 159, along with all judicial expert studies produced in its course; – convey to the office of the counsel documents constituting evidence in the case (personal documents, letters and other correspondence, photos, personal effects, etc.) as well as copies of protocols and memos produced by the NKVD or other Soviet organs, relating by name to Antoni Nawratil and Andrzej Janowiec; – convey to the office of the counsel a copy of the decision to discontinue investigation No. 159 “if one had been issued or is about to be issued”.

8. The counsel for the applicants based his motion on Articles 42.1 and 42.2 of the Russian Code of Penal Proceedings of December 18 2001.

9. On 10 February 2005 the Chief Military Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation replied to the motion of the applicants’ counsel. The Prosecutor’s Office affirmed that “Antoni Nawratil, son of Julian, born in 1883, and Andrzej Janowiec, son of Jan, born in 1890, are listed as prisoners of war held at the Starobelsk camp, who, along with others, were shot in 1940 by organs of the NKVD of the USSR and were buried in the vicinity”. The letter from the Prosecutor’s Office was conveyed to the applicants’ counsel by the Consulate General of the Republic of Poland in Moscow.

10. During a press conference on 11 March 2005, the Chief Military Prosecutor’s Office of the

Russian Federation publicly disclosed for the first time that investigation No. 159 had been discontinued. The content of the decision to discontinue the investigation, along with its substantiation, was classified as “top secret”.

11. On 9 October 2006, counsel for the applicants, V. Bushuev, filed a motion with the Chief Military Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation for permission to study the investigation file and for a copy of the decision to discontinue it, dated 21 September 2004.

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

135

12. On 7 November 2006 the Chief Military Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation re-

plied to the motion made by the applicants’ counsel on 9 October 2006. The prosecutor underlined that prior to the discontinuation of investigation No. 159 no motion had been made for granting victim status to either the officers themselves or their relatives and no decision had been made to grant such status. The absence of such a decision made it impossible to invoke the rights guaranteed under Article 42.2-11 of the CPP.

13. On 27 November 2006 the applicants’ counsel, V. Bushuev, lodged a judicial appeal with the Moscow District Military Court against the decisions of the Chief Military Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation dated 10 February 2005 and 7 November 2006. In his appeal, the counsel demanded that: – the decisions of the Prosecutor’s Office to refuse access to the file of investigation No. 159 and to provide a copy of the decision to discontinue investigation No. 159 be found unlawful: – the Prosecutor’s Office be obligated to grant victim status to the relatives of Antoni Nawratil and Andrzej Janowiec on the basis of article 42.1 of the CPP; – “the possibility be ensured for enjoyment of the rights envisaged under Article 42 and 45 of the CPP”.

14. In the substantiation of his appeal, the applicants’ counsel referred to the case law of the

Constitutional Tribunal of the Russian Federation: judgment of 22 January 2004 in the case of L. S. concerning the constitutionality of Article 354.4 of the CPP and judgment of 27 July 2000 concerning the constitutionality of Articles 47 and 51 of the CPP. The Constitutional Tribunal ruled that the protection of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution of the Russian Federation in penal proceedings did not depend on a person being formally granted specific rights, but on the actual judicial position of that person.

15. On 18 April 2007 the Moscow District Military Court rejected the appeal of the applicants’

counsel against the decisions of the Chief Military Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation dated 10 February 2005 and 7 November 2006. In its substantiation, the court stated that the investigation organs had had no basis to grant victim status to the relatives of Antoni Nawratil and Andrzej Janowiec under Article 42 of the Russian CPP in view of the factual circumstances of the case.

16. On the basis of materials provided by the Chief Military Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian

Federation, the District Court stated that investigation No. 159 had determined the death of 1803 Polish citizens held at NKVD camps in Ostashkov, Starobelsk and Kozelsk. The names of Janowiec and Nawratil were listed as prisoners held at the NKVD camp in Starobelsk under numbers 3914 and 2407 respectively. However, in the course of the investigation only 22 persons had been identified. “Antoni Nawratil and Andrzej Janowiec were not identified among them”. Further, the court reiterated: “In the course of the investigation, the remains of the citizens in question were not identified among the remains that were discovered, exhumed and examined”. For that reason, according to the court, there were no legal grounds to ascertain that the death of Nawratil and Janowiec constituted a crime subject to investigation No. 159. Further, the District Court stated that the applicants’ counsel had been given “full and unrestricted access” to the files of investigation No. 159.

136

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka

17. On 25 April 2007, the applicants’ counsel, V. Bushuev, filed a cassation appeal against the

ruling of the Moscow District Military Court of 18 April 2007. In the cassation appeal, the applicants’ counsel demanded revision of the decision of 18 April 2007 to the extent covered by the appeal of 26 November 2006, that is ascertainment of the unlawfulness of the decision of the prosecution to refuse access to materials and deny a copy of the decision to discontinue investigation No. 159, obligation of the prosecution to grant victim status to the relatives of Antoni Nawratil and Andrzej Janowiec on the basis of Article 42.1 of the CPP and creation of possibilities for their enjoyment of the rights envisaged by Articles 42 and 45 of the CPP.

18. The substantiation of the cassation appeal of 25 April 2007 was formulated in seven points.

In point 1, the counsel pointed out that in accordance with the documents of investigation No. 159 the crime it concerned had affected 14542 Polish citizens, that is also Antoni Nawratil and Andrzej Janowiec. Accordingly, the two officers had incurred moral injury. In point 2, the counsel argued that the death of Janowiec and Nawratil was indicated by the fact that their names were among the small group of Polish citizens, who, as war prisoners, had been handed over to the Kharkov NKVD and whose bodies were ultimately identified during the exhumation. In point 5, the counsel noted that the fact that he had been given access to “some” of the documents of the main investigation No. 159 during his preparation of the appeal could not be taken to mean that the rights of all persons with victim status had been thus satisfied in accordance with Article 42 of the Russian CPP, nor did it mean that such person were thus deprived of the option of pursuing their rights independently.

19. On 24 May 2007 the Military Chamber of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation

rejected the cassation appeal of the applicants’ counsel of 25 April 2007, thus upholding the decision of the Moscow District Military Court of 18 April 2007. The Supreme Court repeated the substantiation of the District Court. It emphasized, that in the course of investigation No. 159, of the 1803 Polish citizens shot, the bodies of only 22 could be identified.

According to the Supreme Court, the remains of Antoni Nawratil and Andrzej Janowiec were not among them. “No information about the further whereabouts of the persons referred to was found in the course of the ‘Katyń” investigation”. For that reason the investigating authorities had refrained from granting victim status under Article 42 of the Russian CPP to the principals of lawyer V. Bushuev.

20. The Supreme Court also noted that the applicants’ counsel had had “full and unrestricted”

access to the file of investigation No. 159. However, in a subsequent paragraph, the Supreme Court advised that “selected volumes” of the investigation file, classified as “top secret” effective from 22 December 2004, contained, among others, the decision of 21 September 2004 to discontinue investigation No. 159.

B. Polish-Russian cooperation to determine the circumstances of the Katyń Crime and actions undertaken by Polish judicial organs to determine the circumstances of the Katyń Crime and obtain access to investigation files No. 159 of the Chief Military Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation 21. On 13 April 1990 the TASS Agency published a communiqué affirming that the Soviet

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

137

NKVD had perpetrated the Katyń Crime. The relevant passage read as follows: “The disclosed archive materials give grounds for the conclusion that Beria, Merkulov and their subordinates bore direct responsibility for the crime committed in the Katyń Forest…”.

22. On 22 March 1990 a prosecutor of the District Prosecutor’s Office in Kharkov issued a

decision to open an investigation into determination of fate of prisoners of war detained 1939-1940 in NKVD camps at Starobelsk, Kozelsk and Ostashkov, i.e. a crime under Articles 94, 98 and 113 of the Penal Code of the USSR. Under a decision dated 27 September 1990, the investigation concerning the execution of Polish prisoners was transferred for continuation to the Chief Military Prosecutor’s Office of the USSR.

23. On 25 December 1990 the Chief Military Prosecutor’s Office asked the General Prose-

cutor of the RP for legal assistance in connection with the ongoing investigation No. 159.

In response, the Polish side conveyed various evidential materials attached to letters dated April 11 1992, June 28 1991, April 11 1992, October 9 1992, February 19 1993, May 1995, August 16 1995 (see Attachment no. 3).

24. In the summer of 1991 Polish and Russian specialists conducted exhumation works in Khar-

kov, Mednoye and Katyń. The works were continued in 1994-1996 by Polish specialists, on the basis of two bilateral accords: agreement between the Government of the Republic of Poland and the Government of the Russian Federation of 22 February 1994 on graves and places of remembrance and agreement between the Government of the Republic of Poland and the Government of Ukraine of 21 March 1994 on the protection of places of remembrance and burial of the victims of war and political repression.

25. On 14 October 1992 Russian President Boris Yeltsin disclosed that the sentence of death

had been passed on the Polish officers by J. Stalin and the Political Bureau of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) (hereinafter referred to as the CC AUCP (B). President Yeltsin’s envoy, director of the State Archive Service of the RF, Professor Rudolph Pyekhoya conveyed to the Polish authorities the so-called Dossier no.1, containing, among other things, the decision of the Political Bureau of the CC AUCP (B) of 5 March 1940 concerning the execution of 25700 Polish officers and policemen from three NKVD camps at Starobelsk, Kozelsk and Ostashkov, and Poles detained in prisons of the so-called western Ukraine and the so-called western Belarus and a note from A. Shelepin, Chairman of the Committee for National Security (hereinafter referred to as the KGB) of the Council of Ministers of the USSR addressed to N. Khrushchev, dated 3 March 1959, concerning records and other materials in KGB possession relating to prisoners and interned officers shot in 1940 (materials concerning 21, 857 persons).

26. Polish historians were granted temporary access to Russian archives, which resulted in the 4-volume publication “Katyń. Documents of a crime”, prepared jointly with Russian archivists (published by the Head Office of State Archives in 1995, 1998, 2001, 2005).

27. During an official visit to Poland on 25 August 1993, President Yeltsin expressed regret in connection with the Katyń Crime and paid tribute to the victims in front of the Katyń Cross at Powązki Cemetery in Warsaw.

28. On 2 September 1993 the Warsaw Voivodship Prosecutor opened an investigation into the

murder in Katyń and other, as yet undetermined places in the territory of the former USSR

138

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka of Polish officers interned in the autumn of 1939 and incarcerated in camps at Kozelsk, Starobelsk and Ostashkov. On 16 February 1995 the investigation was discontinued, mainly because it overlapped with the investigation conducted by the Chief Military Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation, conducted with substantial participation of representatives of Polish law-enforcement organs.

29. In the Mid-Nineties Poland received 93 volumes of copies of the investigation files com-

piled by the Chief Military Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation concerning the Katyń Crime. The materials include uncertified, frequently illegible copies of documents, which – for that reason – cannot be treated as evidence under Polish law. Furthermore, the sequence of page numbers of the respective volumes is not preserved, which may indicate that they are incomplete.

30. On 29-31 May 1995 prosecutors from Poland, Belarus, Ukraine and the Russian Federation

held a working meeting in Warsaw, during which they reviewed the progress of the investigation conducted by the Chief Military Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation into the Katyń Crime and decided on further investigative measures. The participants agreed that the Chief Military Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation would ask the prosecution authorities of Belarus and Ukraine for legal assistance to determine the circumstances of the execution in 1940 of 7305 arrested Polish citizens. The Belarusian and Ukrainian sides committed themselves to provide the Polish side with information on the progress of implementation of these requests and to convey copies of any materials found. The Polish side undertook to grant legal assistance and convey all documents and information in its possession, relevant to the case.

31. On 27 August 2001 the Minister of Justice – General Prosecutor of the RP asked the Ge-

neral Prosecutor of the Russian Federation to convey to the Institute of National Remembrance (hereinafter referred to as the INR) certified copies of the complete files of the investigation of the Chief Military Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation into the Katyń Crime. In a letter dated November 12 2001, the General Prosecutor of the Russian Federation advised the General Prosecutor of the RP that “…at present all possible investigative actions necessary to take the final decision have been performed on the territory of Russia which decision, however, cannot be taken due to the absence of preliminary investigation materials from the General Prosecutor’s Office of Ukraine. We are constantly monitoring the arrival of any such materials…”. It is further stated in the letter that the Polish side had received “…a copy of the files of the criminal case together with all the protocols of the investigative actions and other documents…”. It is also noted that in the years 1994-1996 no investigative measures were conducted in connection with the case, which means that the Russian prosecution authorities were unable to convey any relevant materials to the Polish side.

32. On 17 January 2002, during an official visit to Poland, Russian President V. Putin did not

exclude the possibility that a Russian law on rehabilitation would also benefit Polish nationals. He also announced on that occasion (during a press conference) that he would instruct the Government of the Russian Federation to establish the essential legal and administrative basis for the payment of compensation to Polish citizens who had been victims of Stalinist repressions.

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

139

33. The question of Katyń was discussed by the Polish and Russian presidents during a meeting

on the margins on the international ceremonies held in Normandy on the 60th anniversary of the Allied landing (6 June 2004). Polish President A. Kwaśniewski expressed the hope that INR President L. Kieres would be able to conduct important talks in Moscow soon to ensure progress in the efforts being made by the INR in connection with the case.

34. On 4 August 2004, the President of the INR and prosecutors from the Institute met at the

headquarters of the Chief Military Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation with the Chief Military Prosecutor of the Russian Federation, to discuss the investigation being conducted by the Chief Military Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation into the Katyń Crime. The participants discussed the legal qualification of the Katyń Crime and the matter of access by INR prosecutors to the complete 168-volume file of the investigation. The Russian side took issue with the INR argument that the crime amounted to genocide, arguing that of the 250 thousand Polish prisoners held by the USSR 90 per cent were ultimately released, so the Katyń Crime affected only 10 per cent of them. Accordingly, the crime was not part of a plan to exterminate the Polish national group in its entirety, or in part.

35. On 12 August 2004 the President of the INR addressed a letter to the Chief Military Prose-

cutor of the Russian Federation, A. Savenkov, in which he referred to the Russian pledge to give the Polish side access to the investigation files and named the INR representatives authorized to study the files and take possession of their certified copies. It was further stated in the letter that the INR representatives would be ready to begin their work in late August 2004. The Chief Military Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation did not respond to that letter. The Russian side also did not respond to a letter of 9 September 2004 from the Director of the Main Commission for the Prosecution of Crimes Against the Polish Nation (the Main Commission and Branch Commissions for the Prosecution of Crimes Against the Polish Nation constitute a part of the INR and fulfill the Institute’s investigative tasks), in which he asked for access by INR representatives to the files, beginning on 4 October 2004.

36. On 13 September 2004 the INR was advised by the Embassy of the RF in Warsaw that the Chief Military Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation was planning to conclude its investigation into the Katyń Crime in September 2004, which made it impossible for INR prosecutors to visit Moscow. The issue of access to the investigation files could again be addressed once the investigation was completed.

37. During a working visit to Moscow by the Polish President (29 September 2004), President

V. Putin officially informed President A. Kwaśniewski that the Chief Military Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation had discontinued the investigation into the Katyń Crime.

In his account of the meeting at the Kremlin, the Polish President said that he had not seen any documents but that the statement by President V. Putin indicated that the investigation had been closed. The Polish President further stated that following the discontinuation of the Russian investigation the Polish side would seek to obtain the 96 volumes of files unknown to the Polish side. President A. Kwaśniewski expressed the hope that the INR would be granted the access to the documents.

38. On 30 September and 13 October 2004, the INR President conveyed requests – through

the Polish Justice Minister – to the Chief Military Prosecutor of the RF for access to the

140

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka files and a copy of the decision on the discontinuation of the investigation; no reply was provided.

39. On 30 November 2004, the Warsaw Branch Commission for the Prosecution of Crimes

Against the Polish Nation opened an investigation into the Katyń Crime. The investigation was opened to determine the full circumstances of the case, identify all victims and to determine the scope of responsibility of the respective persons involved in passing and implementing the decision of 5 March 1940. On 2 March 2005 the Embassy of the RF in Warsaw advised that the Chief Military Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation was ready to give the Polish side access to only 67 volumes of the files, since the remaining part of the files was classified. It was further indicated that the Russian side did not see the possibility of preparing certified copies of any needed documents.

40. On 8 March 2005 the Warsaw Branch Commission for the Prosecution of Crimes Against

the Polish Nation conveyed, through the Polish Ministry of Justice, a request to the General Prosecutor’s Office of the RF for legal assistance concerning the investigation being conducted by the Commission into the Katyń Crime, by providing copies of the complete files of the investigation conducted by the Chief Military Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation and of the decision to discontinue the investigation.

41. On 28 July 2005, the Institute of National Remembrance received the response of the Ge-

neral Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation, dated June 28 2005, for legal assistance concerning its investigation. The Russian side indicated its willingness to provide access to 67 volumes of files of investigation No. 159 conducted by the Chief Military Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation. The letter did not explain why access would not be given to the complete files, and no position was taken on the request for copies of the Russian investigation files and a copy of the decision to discontinue investigation No. 159.

42. In a note dated 8 September 2005, the Russian Federation advised that INR representatives

would be able to examine 67 volumes of files of the Russian investigation, but without the possibility of making copies of the provided documents. The remaining volumes of the files and the decision of 21 September 2004 to discontinue investigation No. 159 would not be provided since those materials were classified.

43. On 9-21 October 2005, three INR prosecutors conducting the investigation into the Ka-

tyń Crime visited Moscow at the invitation of the Chief Military Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation. The Polish visitors examined 67 volumes of files of investigation No. 159 concerning the Katyń Crime and prepared the relevant judicial documentation. Those actions did not yield significant information about the Katyń Crime. The Russian side did not consent to the copying of the supplied documents. The INR prosecutors were not given access to the complete materials of investigation No. 159, because – as the Russian side claimed – some of them were classified. The decision of September 21 2004 to discontinue investigation No. 159 was also classified and for that reason a request by the INR prosecutors to examine it was also denied.

44. On 28 February 2006, the Consular Section of the Embassy of the RP in the Russian Fe-

deration conveyed to the INR a copy of a letter from the Chief Military Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation, dated 18 January 2006, refusing to recognize one of the Polish

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

141

Army officers murdered in Katyń as a victim of political repression on the basis of the provisions of the law of the RF “On the rehabilitation of the victims of political repression” of 18 October 1991 (the motion for rehabilitation of the murdered officer had been lodged by his widow). An appeal against the decision of the prosecution to the district court in the Moscow borough of Khamovniki was unsuccessful. The judge ruled that only the murder victims could appeal against the decision of the prosecution.

45. On 22 March 2006 the President of the INR sent a letter to the Chief Military Prosecutor

of the RF in which he addressed the reply of the Russian side dated 18 January 2006 and presented legal arguments in support of the possibility of rehabilitation of all the victims of the Katyń Crime on the basis of RF law, as persons subjected to political repression.

46. In 2008 relatives of murdered Polish officers submitted further motions for their rehabi-

litation. On 22 May 2008 a Moscow court rejected an appeal by relatives against a refusal to rehabilitate murder victims, and on 8 June 2008 it rejected an appeal by relatives of ten victims against the decision of the Chief Military Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation to discontinue the Katyń Crime investigation, claiming that the matter was within the jurisdiction of military courts, since part of the investigation had been classified and the case was “military” in nature.

47. During a visit to Moscow on 5 February 2008 by Polish Premier D. Tusk, Russian Premier

V. Putin himself raised the subject of the Katyń Crime, describing it as a crime committed when horrible things were happening in Russia. Noting that not only Poles, but also Russians and other nationalities had fallen victim to Stalinist crimes, Premier Putin came out against attempts to determine those guilty, since after so many years actions like that – in his opinion – only fuelled anti-Russian sentiments.

C. Evidential materials directly concerning the relatives of the applicants, which were included in the materials of the investigation conducted by Russian prosecutors, and materials collected by Polish organs particularly in the framework of legal assistance for the needs of Russian investigation No. 159.

48. The Government wish to bring the attention of the Court to the following evidential actions

undertaken by Polish and Russian institutions and the materials obtained in their course, indicating the obtainment by the RF of information about the death of at least one of the officers, Antoni Nawratil, whose relative is an applicant in the instant case.

49. In 1990 the USSR asked Poland for legal assistance and in 1991 joint Polish-Russian exhu-

mations works were conducted in the vicinity of Kharkov. During the works, among the human remains with obvious firearm wounds in their skulls, investigator found in a coat pocket of one of the Polish officers a document with the name of Antoni Nawratil. In response to a Russian request, Polish specialists conducted an expert study of the document which confirmed the presence of the name “Nawratil Antoni” under point 7 of the document. The expert study, which revealed the name of the Polish officer, was conveyed to the Russian Federation on 9 October 1992 (the receipt bears the signature of a representative of the Russian Federation).

50. The Russian side was in possession of the following documents to the Katyń Crime: resolu-

142

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka tion of the CC of the AUCP (B) of 5 March 1940 with the decision to execute 25,700 prisoners of the camps at Starobelsk, Kozelsk and Ostashkov and Poles detained in prisons in the so-called western Ukraine and so-called western Belarus, a note by A. Shelepin, Chairman of the KGB of the Council of Ministers of the USSR, addressed to N. Khrushchev, dated 3 March 1959, concerning records and other materials in KGB possession relating to the prisoners and interned officers shot in 1940 (cf. par. 25), results of archeological-exhumation works conducted during the first half of the Nineties and eyewitness testimony concerning the Katyń Crime (e.g. testimony by Mitrofan Syromyatnikov, a former NKVD officer in Kharkov district).

51. During the exhumation and archeological works conducted in section VI of the park-fo-

rest zone of Kharkov with the participation of Russian prosecutors, including prosecutor A. Tretetski, carried out in 1991 for the needs of the Russian investigation No. 159 and later, in the years 1994-1996, among the human remains investigators repeatedly found documents, letters and other handwritten notes containing the names of Polish officers. Those letters contained the names of Antoni Nawratil and Andrzej Janowiec, as well as the names of many other Polish officers, prisoners of the NKVD camp in Starobelsk. The concurrence of the names on personal effects, i.e. handwritten notes, documents in wallets, military ID tags, signatures on letters and cables, money receipts, filled in forms of the Information Bureau of the Polish Red Cross etc., found among the human remains with documented firearm injuries – with the list of prisoners of the Starobelsk camp, combined with the lack of any information on the further whereabouts of the Polish officers, inmates of the Starobelsk camp, in the form of continued written correspondence with relatives in occupied Poland after May 1940 all indicate that Antoni Nawratil and Andrzej Janowiec, as well as the other prisoners of the Starobelsk camp, had been buried in section VI of the park-forest zone of Kharkov.

52. In Attachments 1 and 2 the Government provide detailed information on the fate of the

relatives of the applicants obtained in the course of the investigation conducted directly by Russian prosecutors, within the framework of legal assistance provided by Polish organs and obtained independently by Polish organs (Attachments 1 and 2). Additionally, the Polish Government submit a list of some of the documents conveyed to the RF in response of the Russian request for legal assistance (Attachment 3).

III. THE LAW A. Admissibility and merits of the application 53. The Polish Government present their position concerning the admissibility and merits of the application by responding to the questions addressed to the Government of the RF.

1.

Response to question 1

54. First question of the Court reads as follows: Assuming that the Court is competent ratione

temporis to examine the procedural limb of Article 2 of the Convention in the instant case, was the investigation into the death of the applicants’ relatives carried out by the Russian authorities, adequate and efficient as required by Article 2 of the Convention?

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

143

55. The Polish Government first of all wish to address the question of the Court’s ratione temporis competence to examine the procedural limb of Article 2 of the Convention in the instant case. The Government believe that the case is admissible ratione temporis under the procedural aspect of Article 2 of the Convention for the following reasons.

56. The Government are aware that pursuant to the general principles of international law and the case law of the Convention organs, the Russian authorities cannot be deemed liable for any acts, decisions, events or omissions which occurred before 5 May 1998, that is before the date when Russia became bound by the Convention. However, since the moment of the Convention’s ratification all actions and omissions of a State must comply with the Convention and its Protocols and any subsequent facts fall within the Court’s jurisdiction, even if they merely constitute a continuation of an existent situation (cf. Yagci and Sargin v. Turkey, judgment of 8 June 1995, Series A no. 319-A, p.16, § 40). Hence, it should be recognized that while the historical events of 1939-1940 do not fall within the temporal jurisdiction of the Court, the application concerns legal acts which occurred in the period after the Russian Federation became bound by the Convention.

57. In its case law, the Court has admitted that recognition of its temporal jurisdiction is at times

difficult when the facts relating to a case partly occurred before a given State became bound by the Convention, and partly after that happened. However, the Court noted that when applying the principle of non-retroactivity, it was willing to take into account, to a certain extent, facts that had occurred before a given State became bound by the Convention, keeping in mind their connection with subsequent events that constituted the basis of an application (cf. Šilih v. Slovenia, judgment of 9 April 2009 [GC], appl. no. 71463/01, § 141).

The Court used this approach, inter alia, to applications based on Article 6 concerning the fairness of penal proceedings, which had been initiated before the entry into force of the Convention and were continued after that date. In such situations the Court examined the fairness of proceedings in their entirety.

58. In the case of Blečić v. Croatia, the Court ascertained: “…in order to establish the Court’s temporal jurisdiction (…) it is therefore essential to identify, in each specific case, the exact time of the alleged interference. In doing so, the Court must take into account both the facts of which the applicant complains and the scope of the Convention right alleged to have been violated….” (cf. Blečić v. Croatia, judgment of 8 March 2006 [GC], appl. no.

59532/00, §§ 72 and 82). That is why in each instance it is the facts of the case and the scope of the right that determine whether it is proper to examine the procedural aspects of the article constituting the basis of the application in the absence of a competence to examine the substantive aspect of the law (cf. Šilih v. Slovenia, op.cit., § 93). Thus, the Court admits situations in which the examination of procedural aspects of a right is possible, despite a simultaneous absence of its temporal competency to examine the substantive aspects.

59. In its newest judgment regarding the issue of temporal jurisdiction, the Court affirmed that the criteria established in the case of Blečić were of a general character, so in applying these criteria the exceptional character of certain rights had to be taken into consideration, particularly – rights guaranteed under Article 2 and 3 of the Convention. The Court affirmed that both these articles were among fundamental provisions of the Convention and reflec-

144

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka ted the basic democratic values of the societies constituting the Council of Europe (cf. Šilih v. Slovenia, op.cit., § 147).

60. The Court ascertained the existence of a procedural obligation under the Convention, in different situations, when it deemed it necessary to ensure that rights guaranteed under the Convention were not theoretical and illusory, but practical and effective (cf. Šilih v. Slovenia, op. cit., § 153). Pursuant to the case law of the Court, the existence of a procedural obligation does not depend on the ultimate recognition of a State’s liability for the death of an individual. When the charge of homicide is formulated, the very fact that the authorities have been informed of the occurrence of death establishes an obligation, under Article 2, to conduct an effective official investigation. It should also be noted that the Court usually examined the issue of procedural obligations under Article 2 separately from the substantive aspect of Article 2 (cf. Šilih v. Slovenia, op.cit. §§156 and 158).

61. Article 2 of the Convention places upon States a special obligation to establish an ef-

ficient domestic system for determining the causes of death of an individual, particularly when the death occurred in connection with the actions of persons acting in official capacity (cf. McCann and Others v. Great Britain, judgment of 27 September 1995, appl. no. 18984/91, §§ 161-63; Kaya v. Turkey, judgment of 19 February 1998, appl. no.

158/1996/777/978, Reports 1998-I, p. 329, § 105 and Çakici v. Turkey [GC], judgment of 8 July 1999, appl. no. 23657/94, § 86, ECHR 1999-IV). Furthermore, the Court underlines in its case law that if the situation which resulted in death involved State officials or State organs, the Convention places upon that State the obligation of ensuring that they bear responsibility for the instances of death that occurred in connection with their activity (cf. mutatis mutandis, Ilhan v. Turkey [GC], judgment of 27 June 2000, appl. no. 22277/93, § 63, ECHR 2000-VII).

62. The Court’s case law indicates that in many instances it treats the obligation of conducting an efficient investigation as an obligation that is autonomous in its character and scope and is not limited only to instances in which the State may bear, directly or indirectly, responsibility for the death of an individual, that is to instances in which the State is responsible for violation of the law in its substantive aspect (cf. Balasoiu v. Romania, decision of 2 September 2003, appl. no. 37424/97; Šilih v. Slovenia, op. cit., § 159).

63. Violation of the procedural obligation to conduct an efficient investigation, pursuant to

Article 2, may constitute a separate and autonomous “interference” in the meaning of the deliberations contained in the Blečić judgment (cf. Blečić v. Croatia, op.cit., § 88). In that sense, a procedural obligation may be treated as a completely separate obligation stemming from Article 2, binding on States even in situations when death occurred before the entry into force of the Convention (cf. Šilih v. Slovenia, op. cit., § 159). However, ascertainment of the existence of this separate obligation depends on the occurrence of certain premises, primarily that the scope of the Court’s jurisdiction encompasses only those acts or omissions that occurred after a given State became bound by the Convention and that the main part of the procedural actions that have to be performed was carried out after that date (cf. Šilih v. Slovenia, op. cit., § 161-163).

64. In such situations the Court finds that it is competent ratione temporis to examine the pro-

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

145

cedural aspect of Article 2, even though it was not competent with regard to the substantive aspect of that Article.

65. The Government believe that application of the above principles to the instant case sho-

uld lead to the conclusion that the death of the applicants’ relatives was unquestionably the result of actions by State officials and that the obligation to conduct an investigation in the given instance was autonomous in character, unconnected with the original interference with the rights of the applicants’ relatives, resulting in their death. The need to conduct an independent assessment of the investigation, divorced from an assessment of the substantive aspect of Article 2 in the instant case, which due to the Court not being competent ratione temporis cannot be examined by the Court, is indicated by the fact that the investigation had been initiated proprio motu, many years after the events of 1940, and, as admitted by Russian authorities, with the basic purpose of accurately determining the circumstances of those tragic events. According to the Russian authorities, the investigation was discontinued in connection with the death of the persons involved in those events. In view of the above circumstances, the procedural obligation stemming from Article 2 of the Convention should be treated in the instant case as autonomous in character and scope. Accordingly, the fact that the Court is not competent ratione temporis to examine the substantive aspect of Article 2 of the Convention should not prevent it from assessing the fairness of the investigation. In view of the above, the Court is competent ratione temporis to examine the part of the investigation conducted after the Russian Federation became bound by the Convention, i.e. after 5 May 1998 as well as the proceedings, connected with the investigation, initiated afterwards and relating to other themes, such as ascertainment of the death and rehabilitation of the victims in accordance with Russian law and the matter of access to the case files.

66. In the second part of the first question, the Court asked for the Government’s position on

whether the investigation carried out by the Russian authorities into the death of the applicants’ relatives had been adequate and efficient, as required by Article 2 of the Convention.

In this regard, the Government wish to submit the following position.

67. The obligation to protect life in accordance with Article 2 of the Convention, examined

in conjunction with the general obligation of States to ensure that every person within their jurisdiction enjoys the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Convention, requires, i.a. in instances where loss of life resulted from the use of armed force, that an effective official investigation be conducted (cf. i.a. Kaya v. Turkey, op.cit., § 10; Bazorkina v. Russia, judgment of 27 July 2006, appl. no. 69481/01, §§ 117-119). In order for an investigation concerning the unlawful killing of a person by State officials to be considered efficient, a number of conditions need to be met. And so, persons responsible for the investigation and its conduct must be independent of the persons who were involved in the events that resulted in death (cf. i.a. Güleç v. Turkey, judgment of 27 July 1998, appl. no. 21593/93, Reports 1998-IV, §§ 81-82, Őgur v. Turkey [GC], judgment of 20 May 1999, appl. no. 21594/93, §§ 92-92, ECHR 1999-III). An investigation must also be efficient in the sense that it is possible to determine in its course whether the use of force was justified in the given circumstances. The investigation must also allow the identification and punishment of the persons responsible (Őgur v. Turkey, op.cit., § 88). States

146

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka are obliged to conduct investigations into the circumstances of death conscientiously, though the Convention does not imply a duty to determine the perpetrators in every instance. The obligation does not apply to the result, but to the measures that are used. All shortcomings of an investigation, restricting the possibility of determining the cause of death or the identity of the perpetrators carry the risk that the investigation will be found as not complying with the requirements of Article 2 of the Convention (cf. Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria, judgment of 26 February 2004, appl. nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98, § 117).

68. Considering the fact that the Polish Government have never had access to the complete

files of the investigation (see paragraphs 21-47), they are unable to take a position concerning the charge of lack of fairness of investigation No. 159 carried out by the Chief Military Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation on the basis of the prosecution files of the investigation. However, circumstances and facts known to the Government show that the requirement of fairness of proceedings was not fulfilled in the instant case. That is indicated by the following circumstances.

69. First of all, during the investigation the applicants received completely contradictory infor-

mation concerning the fates of their relatives. In a letter dated 23 June 2003 the Chief Military Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation advised the applicants that “in the course of investigation No. 159 exhumation works were conducted in the districts of Kharkov, Tver and Smolensk, during which the remains of 200 Polish citizens were secured. Some of them were identified on the basis of numerous personal effects and ID tags. Among them, the remains of the Polish officers indicated by the applicants were also identified. Nawratil and Janowiec are buried in the vicinity of Kharkov…”. In a letter dated 10 February 2004, the Chief Military Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation reiterated: “Antoni Nawratil, son of Julian, born in 1883, and Andrzej Janowiec, son of Jan, born 1890, are listed as prisoners of war held at the Starobelsk camp, who, along with others, were shot in 1940 by organs of the NKVD of the USSR and were buried in the vicinity”. In the cited letters the prosecution confirmed the fact that the applicants’ relatives had been held in the camp at Starobelsk, that they were shot by NKVD organs in 1940 and were buried in the vicinity of Kharkov. Meanwhile, in the substantiation of the decision of the Moscow District Military Court of 18 April 2007 rejecting the appeal of the applicant’s counsel against the decisions of the Chief Military Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation dated 10 February 2005 and 7 November 2006, it was stated that Janowiec and Nawratil were listed as prisoners of the NKVD camp at Starobelsk under the numbers of 3914 and 2407 respectively and that only 22 persons had been identified in the course of the investigation and they did not include Antoni Nawratil and Andrzej Janowiec. Similar assertions are repeated in the judgment of the Military Chamber of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of 24 May 2007, rejecting the cassation appeal of the applicants’ counsel: “the judge reached the justified conclusion that no legal grounds exist to ascertain that Nawratil and Janowiec had lost their lives as a result of the said crime”. Comparing the content of the documents issued by Russian authorities on 23 June 2003 and 10 February 2004 with the decisions passed on 18 April 2007 and 24 May 2007 it should be noted that they contain contradictory information concerning facts of fundamental importance to the applicants and, in consequence, to the case itself.

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

147

70. In their 2003 letter to the Chief Military Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation, the

applicants requested “any documents connected with the last moments of life “ of the officers Antoni Nawratil, Andrzej Janowiec and Stefan Greczyn, taken prisoner by the Red Army in September 1939. The applicants demanded that the Russian authorities determine if and how their relatives had died and where they were buried. The fact that in the course of the Russian investigation the applicants received letters containing completely contradictory information as to the above facts, determination of which they had demanded, clearly indicates shortcomings in the investigation and its lack of fairness.

71. Secondly, a lack of fairness in conducting the investigation is indicated by the fact that the Russian authorities, when determining the circumstances of the 1940 events, did not make use of the evidential materials supplied by the Polish side, provided in the framework of legal assistance requested by the Chief Prosecutor’s Office of the USSR on December 25 1990 (see paragraph 23 and Attachments nos. 1, 2 and 3).

72. Thirdly, there are serious doubts about the assessment of evidential materials included in

the case files by the Russian prosecution, particularly the categorical claim by the Russian authorities that it was impossible to officially determine the death of the applicants’ relatives. In accordance with information possessed by the Polish Government, the Russian prosecution authorities conducting the investigation had in their possession numerous documents confirming the issuance of the sentence of death on Polish nationals interned, among others, in the camps at Starobelsk, Kozelsk and Ostashkov (cf. par. 25,) information that the death sentences had been carried out (cf. par. 59), information on the last months of life of the applicants’ relatives (see Attachments 1 and 2) and, had they wished to do so, they could have participated in archeological-exhumation works conducted by Polish organs in the years 1994-1996 in the vicinity of Kharkov. In consequence of the discontinuation by Russian authorities of investigation No. 159, Polish authorities initiated their own investigation in 2004, with the purpose of determining the circumstances of what happened in 1940 (see par. 39) During their investigation, the Polish authorities managed to corroborate a number of facts concerning the fates of the prisoners from Starobelsk camp and to obtain evidence that Andrzej Janowiec and Antoni Nawratil had been among the executed prisoners (cf. Attachments 1 and 2).

73. In consequence, it can be ascertained that on the basis of the evidential materials in its

possession concerning investigation No. 159, the Russian prosecution was unquestionably able to confirm the execution in 1940 of at least one relative of the applicants, Antoni Nawratil. Furthermore, the RF could have easily obtained evidence, either by participation in the exhumation works in Kharkov in the years 1994-1996 or by asking Polish authorities for their results, which also confirmed the execution in 1940 of another Polish officer, Andrzej Janowiec.

74. On the basis of the above-mentioned resolution of the CC of the AUCP (B) of 5 March

1940, the note of A. Shelepin for N. Khrushchev of 3 March 1959 (cf. par. 25), the results of archeological-exhumation works during the first half of the Nineties and testimony by eyewitnesses to the Katyń Crime (e.g. Mitrofan Syromyatnikov, a former NKVD officer in the Kharkov district), it is possible to determine unequivocally that 25,700 Polish officers, policemen and civil servants were executed in 1940, including 3280 from the NKVD camp

148

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka at Starobelsk, among them – relatives of the applicants. In view of the above, it is puzzling what method of reasoning and appraisal of evidence made it possible to establish during investigation No. 159 that the NKVD had executed only 1803 Polish nationals in 1940. The number 1803 was cited by the Moscow District Military Court and the Military Chamber of the Supreme Court of the RF, during national proceedings by the applicants.

75. The Court has repeatedly stressed in its case law that the subsequent disappearance of a person who previously had been in the hands of the State gives grounds for the supposition, in certain circumstances, that the person concerned had lost his/her life. If the authorities do not explain what happened to such a person, they bear the responsibility for that person’s death. In this context indirect proof is particularly important, providing grounds for the supposition – in line with the required evidential standards – that the missing person had died while in State custody (cf. Timurtas v. Turkey, judgment of 13 June 2000, appl. no.

23531, § 82). The more time elapses without any news about a given person, that person’s death becomes more probable (cf. Tanis and Others v. Turkey, judgment of 2 August 2005, appl. no. 65899/01, § 200).

76. For these reasons, taking into account the cited case law of the Court, the indicated facts

concerning the whereabouts of the applicants’ relatives and the personal effects found during the excavation works, the Government submit that it should be assumed that the relatives of the applicants were already killed in 1940.

77. Fourthly, a lack of fairness of the investigation is indicated by the fact that the applicants

were barred from participating in the proceedings and were denied victim status on the basis of Russian penal law (the issue is detailed in the response to question 3 – paragraphs 94-99). In 2003 the applicants’ counsel filed his first motion with the Chief Military Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation for access to documents concerning the applicants’ relatives. On 4 December 2004 the lawyer submitted another similar letter, also formally requesting that the applicants be granted victim status, in accordance with the Code of Penal Proceedings. The prosecution denied the request in a letter dated 10 February 2005, arguing that only persons previously recognized as “victims’, or their representatives, could be given access to documents. On 11 March 2005, a representative of the Chief Military Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation announced at a press conference that investigation no. 159 had been discontinued. On 9 October 2006 the applicants’ counsel again asked for access to the case files, which was denied in a letter dated 7 November 2006. In its decision, the prosecution stressed that prior to the discontinuation of investigation No. 159, no request had been made for victim status and no decision on granting such status had been issued, which made it impossible to enjoy the rights guaranteed under Article 42 of the CPP. Further appeals against the decision of the Chief Military Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation dated November 7 2006 were also unsuccessful. The Moscow District Military Court held that since there was no basis for the claim that the death of the applicants’ relatives occurred in consequence of the crime that was the subject of investigation No. 159, neither the officers nor their relatives were entitled to the status of victims, which would have given them access to the case files. That argumentation was repeated by the Military Chamber of the Supreme Court in its decision of 24 May 2007.

78. The above facts unequivocally indicate that the prosecution had never formally considered

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

149

the motion of the applicants’ counsel to grant them victim status, which in turn became the pretext for rejecting successive appeals of the applicants in the course higher-instance control of the prosecution’s decisions. Information that the investigation had been discontinued was publicly announced during a press conference on 11 March 2005. Next, on 7 November 2006, the prosecution – referring to the fact that the applicants had not been granted victim status – advised them that they could not avail themselves of the rights guaranteed under Article 42 of the CPP. The courts, examining the appeals of the applicants against that decision of the prosecution, invoked another argument: they asserted that since there were no grounds to claim that the death of the applicants’ relatives had been the result of the crime subject to investigation No. 159, neither the officers nor their relatives were entitled to victim status, which would have given them access to the case files.

79. The absence of formal examination of the applicants’ motion for victim status under Artic-

le 42 of the CPP prevented them from actively participating in the ongoing investigation and from acquainting themselves with the case files after the preparatory proceedings were concluded. In that way, the Russian authorities prevented the applicants from pursuing their rights in national judicial proceedings.

80. Furthermore, note is due to the assertion by the Supreme Court, contained in the decision

of 24 May 2007, that the applicants’ counsel had had “full and unrestricted” access to the files of investigation No. 159. However, in another paragraph, the Supreme Court disclosed that “selected volumes”, classified as “top secret” effective from 22 December 2004, contained, among other items, the decision of 21 September 2004 to discontinue investigation No. 159 (cf. par. 20). In the light of that information, the court’s categorical assertion concerning access to the complete files is questionable.

81. The conduct of the prosecution authorities, described above, should be evaluated in the

light of the case law of the Court. The Court has asserted that proceedings conducted by State authorities, particularly those concerned with determination of circumstances of death, need to be subjected to control by public opinion. The required level of public control may differ, depending on the case. However, in all instances, relatives of the victims have to be involved in such procedures to a degree essential to secure their legitimate interests. Relatives has to be assured the possibility of active participation in proceedings, of submitting evidential motions or other ways of influencing the proceedings (cf., Rajkowska v. Poland, appl. no. 37393/02, decision of 27 November 2007). The Court found that public opinion control had not been ensured i.a. in instances when the victim’s father was not informed of refusal to prosecute, or when the victim’s family was not given access to prosecution and court files (see i.a. Güleç v. Turkey, op. cit., § 82; Öĝur v. Turkey, op. cit., § 92; Gül v. Turkey, judgment of 14 December 2000, appl. no. 22676/93, § 93). In conclusion, it should be stated that failure to ensure the participation of applicants in ongoing proceedings should be treated as one of the elements affirming violation of the principle of fairness of proceedings guaranteed under Article 2 of the Convention.

82. Due to the amount of time that had elapsed since the events that were the subject of the

investigation, the applicants were not seeking conviction of the perpetrators, but wanted determination beyond any doubt of the fate of their relatives and of the place of their burial.

In this situation, the fact that they received contradictory information during the investi-

150

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka gation regarding the fate of their relatives, that the prosecution failed to properly investigate the available evidence and that they were barred from participation in the proceedings, only stimulated their interest in establishing the circumstances of death of their relatives. In this context, the Polish Government wish to refer to the case law of the Court, pursuant to which States are obligated to ensure adequate and efficient investigations into the circumstances of death, even though the Convention does not obligate them in every instance to identify the perpetrators. However, all shortcomings of an investigation that diminish the possibility of determining the causes of death or the identity of the perpetrators pose the risk that the investigation will be found incompatible with the requirements of Article 2 of the Convention (cf. Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria, op. cit., § 117).

83. In the light of the above, the Government wish to submit, first of all, that the Court is com-

petent ratione temporis to examine the procedural aspect of Article 2 of the Convention in the instant case and, secondly, that the investigation into the death of the applicants’ relatives did not meet the criteria of adequacy and efficiency, as required by Article 2 of the Convention. In consequence, there occurred a violation of Article 2 of the Convention in the procedural aspect.

2.

Response to question 2

84. The Government of Poland are unable to produce a copy of the decision to discontinue criminal proceedings No. 159 in the Katyń case, dated 21 September 2004, since the Government have never had access to the said document..

3.

Response to question 3

85. In question 3, the Court asked whether Article 6 of the Convention was applicable in the

instant case under its civil or criminal head. Assuming Article 6 was applicable, was it compatible with that provision that the applicants were denied access to the documents concerning the investigation into the death of their relatives?

86. The Government hold the opinion that Article 6 of the Convention is applicable in the instant case under its civil head, for the following reasons.

87. The applicants, when attempting to become parties to the proceedings conducted in

Russia, realized how much time had elapsed since the events that were the object of the investigation by the Russian authorities, and for that reason were not seeking conviction of the perpetrators, but rather the determination of the circumstances of death of their relatives. The applicants attempted, in national proceedings, to avail themselves of the judicial rights guaranteed under Russian law to obtain credible, true and official information concerning the death of their relatives, who had been under the jurisdiction of the Russian State at the time. Taking that intention of the applicants into account, the Government wish to recall, first of all, the general principles stemming from the case law relating to the possibility of applying Article 6 guarantees to crime victims. In line with the consistent case law of the Court, the right to initiate criminal proceedings and to obtain the conviction of third persons does not belong to the category of rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Convention (cf. i.a. Perez v. France

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

151

[GC], judgment of 12 February 2004, appl. no. 47287/99, § 70, ECHR 2004-I). Also, the Convention does not directly guarantee the right to various forms of participation in proceedings, though its guarantees do apply to persons, who have the right of participating in proceedings under national law (cf. i.a Kuśmierek v. Poland, judgment of 21 September 2004, appl. no. 10675/02, § 48-49; Pieniążek v. Poland, judgment of 28 September 2004, appl. no. 62179/00, § 20). With regard to crime victims or their relatives, Article 6 § 1 may be applicable to those criminal proceedings in which the civil aspect is so closely connected with the criminal aspect, that the outcome of the criminal proceedings might have decisive impact on civil claims. Furthermore, pursuant to the Court’s case law, even if criminal proceedings are conclusive only with respect to a criminal indictment, the application of Article 6 of the Convention is determined by close linkage of the civil component to the criminal component, that is by criminal proceedings affecting the civil component (cf. i.a. Calvelli and Ciglio v. Italy, judgment of 17 January 2002, appl. no. 32967/96, § 62).

88. As noted above, the scope of application of Article 6 is determined by the fact that the Co-

nvention does not grant the right of “private revenge” or actio popularis. Accordingly, the Convention does not guarantee the autonomous right to demand the prosecution and punishment of third persons for committed crimes. Hence, that right must be inseparably linked to the right of a victim to initiate civil proceedings, even if the goal of such proceedings consists in a symbolic mitigation of a wrong suffered or the protection of such a right as the right to respect for one’s good name (cf. Golder v. Great Britain, judgment of 21 February 1975, appl. no. 4451/70, Series A no. 18, p.13, § 27; Helmers v. Sweden, judgment of 29 October 1991, appl. no. 11826/85, p. 14, § 27; and Tolstoy Miloslavsky v. Great Britain, judgment of 13 July 1995, appl. no. 18139/91, series A no. 316-B, p. 78, § 58).

89. The Government note that pursuant to the case law of the Court the concept of “civil rights

and duties” is autonomous, though in this regard the legislation of the given country is not without significance. That is why an answer to the question whether a given right should be treated as a civil right in the understanding of the Convention must not only take into account the legal classification of that right, but also its content and its consequences in the light of the national law of the given country. At the same time, it is equally important that the Court recognizes that in performing its supervisory role it needs to take into consideration the subject and goals of the Convention (see Perez v. France, op. cit., § 57).

90. In its judgments, wherein the Court classified – in the light of the Convention – the status

of specific persons taking part in national judicial proceedings, it highlighted the importance of ensuring for crime victims their rights and due position in criminal proceedings.

Recognizing the fundamental differences in the requirements applied under Article 6 to a fair civil and criminal trial, the Court ascertained, however, that such distinctions must not result in ignoring the difficult situation of the victims or diminishment of their rights (cf.

Perez, op. cit., § 72). For that reason, in the light of the subject and goals of the Convention, refusal to fulfil the guarantees contained in Article 6 must be exceptional (cf. Pellegrin v.

France [GC], judgment of 8 December 1999, appl. no. 28541/95, § 64, ECHR 1999-VIII).

For these reasons the Court found that proceedings conducted by State authorities need to be subjected to public opinion control, and in all cases relatives of the victims have to be

152

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka involved to a degree necessary to ensure their legitimate interests (see i.a. Güleç v. Turkey, op. cit., § 82; Öĝur v. Turkey, op. cit. § 92; Gül v. Turkey, op. cit., §93).

91. Guaranteeing a proper level of protection for crime victims is a matter of constant con-

cern not only for the Court but also for the Committee of Ministers. Recommendation no.

R (85) 11 on the position of the victim in the framework of criminal law and procedure, adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 28 June 1985 stipulates: (…)

(…) 5. A discretionary decision whether to prosecute the offender should not be taken without due consideration of the question of compensation of the victim, including any serious effort made to that end by the offender; 6. The victim should be informed of the final decision concerning prosecution, unless he indicates that he does not want this information; 7. The victim should have the right to ask for a review by a competent authority of a decision not to prosecute, or the right to institute private proceedings (…)

92. Recommendation no. R (87) 21 on assistance to victims and the prevention of victimisa-

tion, adopted by the Committee of Ministers, recommends that States take the following measures: “… 4. ensure that victims and their families, especially those who are most vulnerable, receive in particular: …

– assistance during the criminal process, with due respect to the defence; …”

93. Furthermore, recommendation Rec(2000)19 on the role of public prosecution in the criminal justice system provides that:

“… 34. Interested parties of recognized or identifiable status, in particular victims, should be able to challenge decisions of public prosecutors not to prosecute; such a challenge may be made, where appropriate after an hierarchical review, either by way of judicial review, or by authorizing parties to engage private prosecution.”

94. Considering the instant case against the background of international standards of protec-

tion of crime victims, the Government wish to point out the following. In 2003 the applicants’ counsel submitted his first motion to the Chief Military Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation for access to documents concerning the applicants’ relatives. On 4 December 2004 the counsel made another motion, this time for “recognition of the rights of the relatives of the executed Polish officers” and for provision of trial documents and personal documents of A. Nawratil and A. Janowiec. The prosecution responded negatively in a letter dated 10 February 2005, arguing that access to the documents could only be granted to persons previously recognized as “the injured parties” or their representatives.

On 11 March 2005 a representative of the Chief Military Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation announced at a press conference the decision to definitely discontinue investigation No. 159. Next, on 9 October 2006 the applicants’ counsel renewed the motion for access to the case files, which was denied in a letter dated 7 November 2006. In its decision the prosecution underlined that prior to the discontinuation of investigation No. 159, no

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

153

application had been made for granting victim status and no decision to grant such status had been issued, which made it impossible to invoke rights guaranteed under article 42 of the CPP. Further appeals by counsel against the decision of the Chief Military Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation dated 7 November 2006 also proved unsuccessful. The Moscow District Military Court found that since there was no basis to claim that the death of the applicants’ relatives was the result of the crime that was the subject of investigation No. 159, neither the officers nor their relatives were entitled to victim status, which would have entitled them to have access to the files. Those arguments were repeated by the Military Chamber of the Supreme Court in its decision of May 24 2007.

95. In the light of the above circumstances it should be stated, first of all, that already in his letter

of 2003 the applicants’ counsel asked the prosecution for the provision of “any documents connected with the last moments of life” of the applicants’ relatives, and on 4 December 2004 he submitted another motion, this time for “recognition of the rights of the relatives of the executed Polish officers”, provision of copies of trial documents and personal documents of the officers. Those written trial statements should have been treated as applications for the granting of victim status, since counsel clearly indicated his clients’ wish to avail themselves of the rights guaranteed under Article 42 point 12 of the CPP. Since the motion concerned implementation of the rights guaranteed to victims under Russian law, already at that point the motions should have been treated as motions for granting victim status.

96. Though the Russian prosecution has never taken a formal position on the motions sub-

mitted by the applicants’ counsel, the Government feel that the prosecution’s provision on 23 June 2003 of information to the applicants by responding to their letter constituted per facta concludentia the granting of victim status. Furthermore, standards of fairness of proceedings obligated the Russian authorities to grant the applicants, already in the response to their letter of 2003, full information on their judicial rights. The right to information is an integral element of a fair trial, particularly in a situation when the proceedings are conducted, as in the instant case, outside the State of which the applicants are citizens. The overall conduct of the prosecution testifies to a lack of willingness to inform the applicants about their judicial rights. Even if the Russian prosecution did not treat the applicants’ letters as formal motions for the granting of victim status, it should have provided them with accurate information on the formalities required for them to obtain such status.

97. The judicial position of the applicants also is not weakened by the fact that they submitted

a formal motion for granting them victim status only in December 2004, after the investigation had been discontinued. First of all, the prosecution letter dated February 2005 does not constitute a formal decision concerning their motion. Secondly the discontinuation of the investigation did not release the prosecution from the obligation to issue a formal decision, since the applicants had not been informed of the discontinuation and they should have been treated as victims since 23 June 2003.

98. The facts cited above clearly show that the prosecution had never formally examined the

applicants’ motion for granting them victim status, which became the pretext for rejecting the successive higher-instance appeals of the applicants against the decisions of the prosecution. Information about the discontinuation of the investigation was publicly announced at a press conference on 11 March 2005. Next, the prosecution, referring to the fact that the

154

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka applicants did not possess victim status, sent a letter to them dated 7 November 2006, informing them that they were not entitled to the rights guaranteed under Article 42 of the CPP. The courts examining the applicants’ appeals against that prosecution decision invoked yet another argument, claiming that since there was not basis to ascertain that the death of the applicants’ relatives was the result of the crime being the subject of investigation No. 159, 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).

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

155

102. The matter of access to files and the extent of possible participation of the parties and victi-

m’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 requirement of access to case files stems from the adversary character of the trial contained in Article 6 of the Convention. It means that both the prosecution and the defense must have the possibility of examining and commenting on the positions and evidence presented by the other side. The very wording of Article 6 – and particularly the autonomous meaning given to the concept of “case” in the understanding of the Convention – indicates that this provision finds partial application to preparatory proceedings (cf. Imbrioscia v. Switzerland, judgment of November 24 1993, appl. no. 13972/88, series A no. 275, p. 13, § 36, Rajkowska v. Poland, op. cit.). The Court allows in its case law for the guarantees of Article 6 to be applied to relatives of the victim also in preparatory proceedings, it they are pursuing rights of a civil character (cf. Perez v. France, op. cit., § 66).

103. The failure to observe the principles of adversary character of a trial and equality of the par-

ties in national proceedings, guaranteed by Russian law, which constitute a crucial component of fair civil proceedings in accordance with Article 6 of the Convention, and, in consequence, the failure to allow the applicants’ participation in proceedings despite a legal basis for such participation, may be interpreted as intended to prevent their assessment whether the proceedings conducted by the Russian authorities were fair. And that fairness may be questioned in the light of the facts cited above.

104. In its case law the Court has stated that its role under the Convention consists in determi-

ning whether proceedings against which a complaint is lodged have been, on the whole, fair (cf. i.a. García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], judgment of 21 January 1999, appl. no. 30544/96, §§ 28-29). Regarding the circumstances of the instant case, with particular reference to all the cited examples of nonfeasance by the Russian authorities, it may be ascertained that the proceedings conducted by the Russian authorities, in which they failed to take a formal position concerning the motion of the applicants for victim status and, in consequence, refused them access to the files of the case concerned with determining the actual circumstances of the death of their relatives, did not on the whole meet the requirements laid down in Article 6 of the Convention.

4.

Response to question 4

105. In question 4 the Court asked whether the Russian civil courts were able, in the absence of

any results from the criminal investigation in the “Katyń” case (No. 159), to consider the merits of a civil claim stemming out of the execution of the applicants’ relatives? If not, was it compatible with Article 13 of the Convention?

106. Article 13 of the Convention guarantees an effective remedy before a national authority to

everyone whose rights and freedoms set forth in the Convention are violated, regardless of the form of that remedy in the national legal order. This means that everyone who makes a justified claim for being recognized a victim of violation of his/her rights guaranteed by the Convention, should have at his/her disposal a remedy ensuring that the case is examined

156

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka (to ascertain whether a violation of rights took place) and any injury is compensated (cf.

Lithgow v. Great Britain, judgment of 8 July 1986, appl. nos. 9006/80; 9262/81; 9263/81; 9265/81; 9266/81; 9313/81; 9405/81, § 205). In this regard, States are free to choose the mode of fulfilling the resultant obligations. The scope of obligations ensuing from Article 13 differs, depending on the right violation of which has been alleged. However, the remedy must be legally and practically effective (cf. Melnik v. Ukraine, judgment of 28 March 2006, appl. no. 72286/01, § 114).

107. It should be recalled that in accordance with the Court’s established case law, in the event

of a justified claim that the victim was unlawfully deprived of life by persons acting in an official capacity, the concept of effective remedy in the meaning of Article 13 encompasses compensation as well as an adequate and effective investigation, leading to the determination and punishment of the perpetrators, with relatives ensured effective participation in the investigation. In this regard, in cases concerning the right to life, requirements under Article 13 are broader than the procedural obligation on the basis of Article 2 (cf. Kaya v. Turkey, op.cit., § 107). Furthermore, the practical effectiveness of the remedy implies that its application cannot be hindered without justification by actions or inaction of State authorities (cf. Aksoy v. Turkey, judgment of 18 December 1996, Reports 1996-VI, p. 2286, § 95; and Aydin v. Turkey, judgment of 25 September 1997, Reports 1997-VI, pp. 1895-96, § 103).

108. Under the system of Russian law, victims of unlawful or criminal acts attributable to the

State or persons acting in an official capacity, may demand the protection of their rights either in civil or penal proceedings. In the context of the instant case, the Government wish to recall that the Court found in previously adjudicated cases that the Russian Government had not presented any practical examples confirming that Russian courts were cable, in the absence of any results from a criminal investigation, such as the determination of the perpetrators, to consider the merits of a civil claim by an injured party (cf. Baysayeva v. Russia, judgment of 5 April 2007, appl. no. 74237/01, § 106). Those observations led the Court to the conclusion that violation of Article 2, in conjunction with Article 13, had occurred in the cases examined. The Government believe that there are no premises for the Court to depart from that line of reasoning in the instant case. Hence, violation of Article 13 has occurred in the instant case.

IV.

FINAL CONCLUSIONS

109. In view of the circumstances of the case and their explanations the Government submit to

the European Court of Human Rights that application no. 55508/07 should be admitted, in accordance with Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention.

110. In any case, the Government allege that Article 2 of the Convention under its procedural limb, along with Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention, were all violated in the instant case.

Encl. Attachments nos. 1, 2 and 3.

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

157

Załącznik nr 1B – Kopia kartki pocztowej nadanej w 1939 r. przez Andrzeja Janowca, jeńca obozu NKWD w Starobielsku, z obozu do żony Heleny Janowiec w okupowanej Polsce.

Attachment no. 1B – Copy of a postcard written by Andrzej Janowiec, a prisoner of war in the NKVD Starobelsk camp, to his wife, Ms Helena Janowiec, sent from the camp to occupied Poland in 1939.

158

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka

Załącznik nr 1D – Kopia kartki zawierającej nazwiska polskich oficerów osadzonych w obozie NKWD w Starobielsku, w tym nazwisko Andrzeja Janowca, wydobyta z grobu nr 40/95 podczas prac archeologiczno-ekshumacyjnych w Charkowie w 1995 r. Str. 158-159.

Attachment no. 1D – Copy of a sheet of paper with the names of Polish officers detained in the NKVD Starobelsk camp, including Andrzej Janowiec’s name, taken out of grave no. 40/95 during archaeological and exhumation work in Kharkov in 1995. Pages: 158-159.

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

159

160

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka

Załącznik nr 1E [załącznik tożsamy z załącznikiem 2F] – Odpowiedź Głównej Prokuratury Wojskowej FR z 23 czerwca 2003 r. na wniosek mec. Józefa Szewczyka w sprawie rozstrzelania i pogrzebania Andrzeja Janowca, jeńca obozu NKWD w Starobielsku.

Attachment no.1E [Attachment identical with Attachment no. 2F] – Reply dated 23 June 2003 by the Chief Military Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation to a request by Mr J. Szewczyk, a lawyer, on the execution and burial of Mr Andrzej Janowiec, a prisoner of war in the NKVD Starobelsk camp.

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

161

Załącznik nr 2C – Ekspertyza kryminalistyczna nr HLE-3937/91 Centralnego Laboratorium Kryminalistycznego Komendy Głównej Policji w Warszawie z 16 lipca 1992 r. dotycząca kartki zawierającej listę 118 nazwisk polskich oficerów osadzonych w obozie NKWD w Starobielsku, w tym nazwisko Antoniego Nawratila, wydobytej podczas prac archeologiczno-ekshumacyjnych w Charkowie w 1991 r. (w publikacji załącznik umieszczony w formie wyciągu). Str. 161-173.

162

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka

Attachment no. 2C – Forensic expert opinion no. HLE-3937/91 dated 16 July 1992 drawn up by the Central Criminal Laboratory of the National Police Headquarters in Warsaw about a sheet of paper with a list of 118 names of Polish officers detained in the NKVD Starobelsk camp, including Mr Antoni Nawratil, dug out during the archaeological and exhumation work in Kharkov in 1991 (Attachment published in excerpted version). Pages: 161-173.

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

163

164

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

165

166

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

167

168

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

169

170

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

171

172

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

173

174

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka

Załącznik nr 2D – Kopia fragmentu kartki zawierającej listę 118 nazwisk polskich oficerów osadzonych w obozie NKWD w Starobielsku, w tym nazwisko Antoniego Nawratila, wydobytej podczas prac archeologiczno-ekshumacyjnych w Charkowie w 1991 r.

Attachment no. 2D – Copy of a the fragment of the sheet of paper with the names of 118 Polish officers detained in the NKVD Starobelsk camp, including Mr Antoni Nawratil, dug out from the site of archaeological and exhumation work in Kharkov in 1991.

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

175

Załącznik nr 2E [załącznik tożsamy z dokumentem w załączniku 2K, z załącznikiem 3D oraz z załącznikiem 2D do stanowiska Rządu RP z 29 lipca 2010 r.] – Pismo Ministerstwa Sprawiedliwości RP do Głównej Prokuratury Wojskowej FR z 9 października 1992 r. informujące o przekazaniu Federacji Rosyjskiej szeregu dokumentów, w tym ekspertyzy kryminalistycznej nr HLE-3937/91, w wykonaniu radzieckiego wniosku z 25 grudnia 1990 r. o pomoc prawną w ramach śledztwa katyńskiego nr 159. Str. 175-177.

176

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka

Attachment no. 2E [Attachment identical with a letter included in Attachment no. 2K, with Attachment no. 3D and with Attachment no. 2D to the Government’s submission of 29.07.2010] – Letter dated 9 October 1992 from the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Poland to the Chief Military Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation on handing over to the Russian Federation of a number of documents, including forensic expert opinion no. HLE-3937/91, in reply to the USSR’ request of 25 December 1990 for legal assistance in conducting the Katyń crime investigation No. 159.

Pages: 175-177.

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

177

178

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka

Załącznik nr 2K – Pismo Ministerstwa Sprawiedliwości RP do Głównej Prokuratury Wojskowej FR z 9 października 1992 r. informujące o przekazaniu Federacji Rosyjskiej szeregu dokumentów, w tym ekspertyzy kryminalistycznej nr HLE-3937/91, w wykonaniu radzieckiego wniosku z 25 grudnia 1990 r. o pomoc prawną w ramach śledztwa katyńskiego nr 159 [załącznik tożsamy z załącznikiem 2E, z załącznikiem 3D oraz z załącznikiem 2D do stanowiska Rządu RP z 29 lipca 2010 r.], str. 69-71 oraz pismo Ministerstwa Sprawiedliwości RP do Głównej Prokuratury Woj-

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

179

skowej FR z 19 lutego 1993 r. informujące o przekazaniu Federacji Rosyjskiej 5 opinii i 2 ekspertyz w wykonaniu radzieckiego wniosku z 25 grudnia 1990 r. o pomoc prawną w ramach śledztwa katyńskiego nr 159 [załącznik tożsamy z załącznikiem 3E oraz z załącznikiem 2E do stanowiska Rządu RP z 29 lipca 2010 r.]. Str. 178-182.

Attachment no. 2K – Letter dated 9 October 1992 from the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Poland to the Chief Military Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation on the handing over to the Russian Federation of a number of documents, including a forensic expert opinion no. HLE-3937/91, in reply to the USSR’s request of 25 December 1990 for legal assistance in conducting the Katyń investigation no. 159 [Attachment identical with Attachments nos. 2E and 3D and with Attachment

180

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka

no. 2D to the Government’s submission of 29.07.2010] and Letter dated 19 February 1993 from the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Poland to the Chief Military Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation on the handing over to the Russian Federation of five opinions and two analyses, in reply to the USSR’s request of 25 December 1990 for legal assistance in conducting the Katyń investigation No. 159 [Attachment identical with Attachment no. 3E and with Attachment no. 2E to the Government’s submission of 29.07.2010]. Pages 178-182.

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

181

182

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

183

Załącznik nr 3A [załącznik tożsamy z załącznikiem 2A do stanowiska Rządu RP z 29 lipca 2010 r.]

– Pismo Ministerstwa Sprawiedliwości RP do Głównej Prokuratury Wojskowej ZSRR z 11 kwietnia 1991 r. informujące o przekazaniu ZSRR ok. 200 dokumentów, w tym protokołów zeznań świadków, będących członkami rodzin więźniów z obozów NKWD w Kozielsku, Starobielsku i Ostaszkowie, w wykonaniu radzieckiego wniosku z 25 grudnia 1990 r. o pomoc prawną w ramach śledztwa katyńskiego nr 159. Str. 183-188.

184

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka

Attachment no. 3A [Attachment identical with Attachment no. 2A to the Government’s submission of 29.07.2010] – Letter dated 11 April 1991 from the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Poland to the Chief Military Prosecutor’s Office of the USSR on the handing over to the USSR of approximately 200 documents, including testimonies of witnesses, relatives of prisoners in the NKVD Kozelsk, Starobelsk and Ostashkov camps, in reply to the USSR’s request of 25 December 1990 for legal assistance in conducting the Katyń investigation No. 159. Pages 183-188.

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

185

186

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

187

188

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

189

Załącznik nr 3B [załącznik tożsamy z załącznikiem 2B do stanowiska Rządu RP z 29 lipca 2010 r.]

– Pismo Ministerstwa Sprawiedliwości RP do Głównej Prokuratury Wojskowej ZSRR z 28 czerwca 1991 r. informujące o przekazaniu ZSRR ok. 200 dokumentów, w tym protokołów zeznań świadków, będących członkami rodzin więźniów z obozów NKWD w Kozielsku, Starobielsku i Ostaszkowie, w wykonaniu radzieckiego wniosku z 25 grudnia 1990 r. o pomoc prawną w ramach śledztwa katyńskiego nr 159. Str. 189-195.

190

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka

Attachment no. 3B [Attachment identical with Attachment no. 2B to the Government’s submission of 29.07.2010] – Letter dated 28 June 1991 from the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Poland to the Chief Military Prosecutor’s Office of the USSR on the handing over to the USSR of approximately 200 documents, including testimonies of witnesses, relatives of prisoners in the NKVD Kozelsk, Starobelsk and Ostashkov camps, in reply to the USSR’s request of 25 December 1990 for legal assistance in conducting the Katyń investigation No. 159. Pages 189-195.

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

191

192

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

193

194

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

195

196

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka

Załącznik nr 3C [załącznik tożsamy z załącznikiem 2C do stanowiska Rządu RP z 29 lipca 2010 r.]

– Pismo Ministerstwa Sprawiedliwości RP do Głównej Prokuratury Wojskowej FR z 11 kwietnia 1992 r. informujące o przekazaniu Federacji Rosyjskiej ok. 100 dokumentów, w tym protokołów zeznań świadków, będących członkami rodzin więźniów z obozów NKWD w Kozielsku, Starobielsku i Ostaszkowie, w wykonaniu radzieckiego wniosku z 25 grudnia 1990 r. o pomoc prawną w ramach śledztwa katyńskiego nr 159. Str. 196-200.

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

197

Attachment no. 3C [Attachment identical with Attachment no. 2C to the Government’s submission of 29.07.2010] – Letter dated 11 April 1992 from the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Poland to the Chief Military Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation on the handing over to the Russian Federation of approximately 100 documents, including testimonies of witnesses, relatives of prisoners in the NKVD Kozelsk, Starobelsk and Ostashkov camps, in reply to the USSR’s request of 25 December 1990 for legal assistance in conducting the Katyń investigation No. 159. Pages 196-200.

198

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

199

200

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

201

Załącznik nr 3F – Wersja robocza pisma Ministerstwa Sprawiedliwości RP do Głównej Prokuratury Wojskowej FR z maja 1995 r. w wykonaniu radzieckiego wniosku z 25 grudnia 1990 r. o pomoc prawną w ramach śledztwa katyńskiego nr 159. Str. 201-203.

Attachment no. 3F – Preliminary version of a letter of May 1995 from the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of P oland to the Chief Military Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation in reply to the USSR’s request of 25 December 1990 for legal assistance in conducting the Katyń investigation No. 159. Pages 201-203.

202

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

203

204

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka

Załącznik nr 3G [załącznik tożsamy z załącznikiem 2F do stanowiska Rządu RP z 29 lipca 2010 r.]– Pismo Ministerstwa Sprawiedliwości RP do Głównej Prokuratury Wojskowej FR z 16 sierpnia 1995 r. informujące o przekazaniu Federacji Rosyjskiej ok. 250 dokumentów, w tym protokołów z zeznań świadków w sprawie osób figurujących na tzw. Ukraińskiej Liście Katyńskiej i tzw. Białoruskiej Liście Katyńskiej, w wykonaniu radzieckiego wniosku z 25 grudnia 1990 r. o pomoc prawną w ramach śledztwa katyńskiego nr 159. Str. 204-212.

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

205

Attachment no. 3G [Attachment identical with Attachment no. 2F to the Government’s submission of 29.07.2010] – Letter dated 16 August 1995 from the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Poland to the Chief Military Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation on the handing over to the Russian

206

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka

Federation of approximately 250 documents, including witnesses’ testimonies on the persons included in the so-called Ukrainian Katyń List and the so-called Belarusian Katyń List, in reply to the USSR’s request of 25 December 1990 for legal assistance in conducting the Katyń investigation No. 159. Pages 204-212.

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

207

208

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

209

210

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

211

212

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

213

Pismo Rządu RP z 27 stycznia 2010 r. w sprawie przyłączenia się do sprawy Wołk-Jezierska i inni p. Rosji Letter dated 27 January 2010 from the Government of Poland on its intervention in the case Wołk-Jezierska and Others v. Russia

214

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka

Stanowisko Rządu RP z 29 lipca 2010 r. w sprawie Wołk-Jezierska i inni p. Rosji I. WSTĘP 1. Rząd Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej (“Rząd”) ma zaszczyt przedstawić Europejskiemu

Trybunałowi Praw Człowieka (“Trybunał”) obserwacje w sprawie skargi złożonej przez panią Witomiłę Wołk-Jezierską (pierwsza skarżąca), panią Ojcumiłę Wołk (druga skarżąca), panią Wandę Rodowicz (trzecia skarżąca), panią Halinę Michalską (czwarta skarżąca), pana Artura Tomaszewskiego (piąty skarżący), pana Jerzego Lecha Wielebnowskiego (szósty skarżący), pana Gustawa Ercharda (siódmy skarżący), pana Jerzego Karola Malewicza (ósmy skarżący), pana Krzysztofa Jana Malewicza (dziewiąty skarżący), panią Krystynę Krzysztofiak (dziesiąta skarżąca), panią Irenę Erchard (jedenasta skarżąca), panią Krystynę Mieszczankowską (dwunasta skarżąca) i pana Krzysztofa Romanowskiego (trzynasty skarżący), obywateli polskich. Rząd pragnie zwrócić uwagę, że w faktach Trybunału błędnie podane zostały dane osobowe krewnego czwartego skarżącego, poprawne dane osobowe to: Stanisław Uziembło, urodzony w 1889 r.

2. Obecna sprawa wywodzi się ze skargi nr 29520/09 złożonej do Europejskiego Trybunału

Praw Człowieka. Skarga została złożona w dniu 24 maja 2009 r. Jak zostało sprecyzowane przez Trybunał w pytaniach skierowanych do Rządu Federacji Rosyjskiej („Rząd FR”), obecna sprawa dotyczy następujących kwestii: 1. Czy mając na uwadze wnioski Trybunału na temat jurysdykcji temporalnej w szczególności w sprawie Varnava i inni p. Turcji [GC], nr 16064/90, 16065/90, 16065/90, 16066/90, 16068/90, 16069/90, 16070/90, 16071/90, 16072/90, 16073/90, §§ 136-150, 18 września 2009 r.), śledztwo w sprawie śmierci krewnych skarżących przeprowadzone przez władze Federacji Rosyjskiej było adekwatne i skuteczne, jak wymaga tego art. 2 Konwencji? W szczególności, czy skarżącym umożliwiono wystarczający dostęp do akt śledztwa włącznie z zebranymi dowodami i decyzjami procesowymi?

2. Rząd FR jest zobowiązany do przedłożenia kopii decyzji z dnia 21 września 2004 r. o umorzeniu postępowania karnego w sprawie „Katyńskiej” (nr 159).

3. Strony są zobowiązane do przedłożenia dokumentów dotyczących krewnych skarżących, takich jak właściwe wpisy na listach NKWD oraz protokoły z ekshumacji zwłok przeprowadzonych w 1943 r. w części dotyczącej identyfikacji trzech krewnych skarżących.

4. Czy mając na uwadze starania skarżących o uzyskanie informacji na temat ich zaginionych krewnych oraz sposób, w jaki władze Federacji Rosyjskiej odpowiedziały na te zapytania, skarżący poddani byli traktowaniu zakazanemu przez art. 3 Konwencji (patrz np. Gongadze p. Ukrainie, nr 34056/02, §§ 184-186, ECHR 2005-XI)?

5. Czy odmówienie skarżącym statusu ofiar w postępowaniu karnym (sprawa nr 159)

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

215

oraz/lub dostępu do dokumentów dotyczących śledztwa w sprawie śmierci ich krewnych, było zgodne z art. 6 Konwencji?

6. W konsekwencji, czy skarżącym przysługiwał skuteczny środek na ich roszczenia, jak wymaga tego art. 13 Konwencji?

3. Rząd Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej przedkłada Europejskiemu Trybunałowi Praw Człowieka,

że skarga nr 29520/09 powinna zostać uznana za dopuszczalną zgodnie z art. 34 i 35 Konwencji.

4. W każdym razie Rząd twierdzi, że w obecnej sprawie doszło do naruszenia aspektu proceduralnego art. 2 Konwencji, naruszenia art. 3 oraz art. 6 i art. 13 Konwencji.\

II. FAKTY A. Okoliczności sprawy 5. Rząd zgadza się z faktami niniejszej skargi, tak jak zostały one przedstawione w faktach sprawy przygotowanych przez Trybunał, jednocześnie jednak chciałby przedstawić dodatkowe informacje (wyróżnione czcionką pogrubioną), wynikające z pism załączonych przez skarżących do niniejszej skargi, które mają znaczenie dla rozpatrywania skargi (patrz paragrafy 8-30).

6. Rząd RP pragnie podkreślić na wstępie, iż rozstrzelanie w 1940 r. przez NKWD polskich

jeńców wojennych osadzonych w obozach w Starobielsku, Kozielsku, Ostaszkowie oraz więzieniach tzw. Zachodniej Białorusi i tzw. Zachodniej Ukrainy określane jest w Polsce terminem „Zbrodnia Katyńska”. Posługiwanie się terminem „wydarzenia katyńskie” („Katyń events”) nie odzwierciedla wagi, jaką w historii Polski przywiązuje się do zabójstwa w 1940 r. przez władze radzieckie polskich jeńców.

Postępowania dotyczące rehabilitacji skarżących

7. Skarżący kilkukrotnie zwracali się do różnych organów Federacji Rosyjskiej, a przede

wszystkim do Głównej Prokuratury Wojskowej, o informacje na temat śledztwa katyńskiego nr 159, jak również o rehabilitację ich krewnych.

8. W dniu21kwietnia1998r.GłównaProkuraturaWojskowaw swoimpiśmieo sygnaturze

nr 3y-6818-90 odpowiedziała za pośrednictwem Wydziału Konsularnego Ambasady RP w Moskwie na wniosek drugiej skarżącej Pani Ojcumiły Wołk o rehabilitację jej męża Wincentego Wołka. Prokuratura poinformowała skarżącą, iż nazwisko jej męża widnieje na liście więźniów obozu NKWD w Kozielsku, a Wincenty Wołk został rozstrzelany wiosną 1940 r. wraz z innymi więźniami. Ponadto, prokuratura poinformowała, iż wniosek o rehabilitację rozstrzelanych może być rozpatrzony dopiero po zakończeniu śledztwa karnego w sprawie.

9. W dniu 25 października 2005 r. pierwsza skarżąca, Pani Witomiła Wołk-Jezierska, mając na uwadze zakończenie śledztwa katyńskiego nr 159 oraz rzekome utajnienie postanowienia w tej sprawie, zwróciła się do Głównej Prokuratury Wojskowej

216

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka z wnioskiem o udzielenie informacji na temat dalszych losów śledztwa katyńskiego, doręczenie kopii postanowienia o jego umorzeniu, a w przypadku potwierdzenia informacji o utajnieniu tego postanowienia, o ponowne rozpatrzenie decyzji w tej sprawie. Pierwsza skarżąca zwróciła również uwagę prokuratury na znaczenie art.

2 Konwencji o ochronie praw człowieka i podstawowych wolności dla śledztwa katyńskiego nr 159. Zdaniem pierwszej skarżącej art. 2 Konwencji wymaga przeprowadzenia efektywnego śledztwa, wyjaśnienia wszelkich okoliczności zbrodni oraz poinformowania o rezultatach śledztwa w celu ukarania winnych.

10. W dniu 7 grudnia 2005 r. Wydział Konsularny Ambasady RP w Moskwie przekazał

odpowiedź Głównej Prokuratury Wojskowej na wniosek pierwszej skarżącej Pani Witomiły Wołk-Jezierskiej z dnia 25 października 2005 r. W liście z dnia 23 listopada 2005 r. Główna Prokuratura Wojskowa poinformowała pierwszą skarżącą, iż w treści postanowienia o zakończeniu śledztwa katyńskiego znajdują się informacje stanowiące tajemnicę państwową, dlatego zgodnie z rozdziałem 6 Ustawy o tajemnicy państwowej i art. 2 Europejskiej Konwencji o wzajemnej pomocy w sprawach karnych dokument ten nie podlega rozpowszechnieniu i nie może zostać przekazany stronie polskiej. W swoim liście z dnia 7 grudnia 2005 r. Wydział Konsularny Ambasady RP w Moskwie poinformował również pierwszą skarżącą, iż wystąpi do Głównej Prokuratury Wojskowej z wnioskiem o wyjaśnienie kwestii rehabilitacji Wincentego Wołka, która miała zostać rozstrzygnięta po zakończeniu śledztwa katyńskiego nr 159. W dniu 8 grudnia 2005 r. stosowny wniosek został wystosowany.

11. W dniu 18 stycznia 2006 r. Główna Prokuratura Wojskowa udzieliła odpowiedzi na

wniosek z dnia 8 grudnia 2005 r. Wydziału Konsularnego Ambasady RP w Moskwie.

Prokuratura poinformowała, iż brak jest podstaw do rehabilitacji Wincentego Wołka i innych polskich obywateli. Prokuratura wskazała, iż art. 3 pkt. “b” [б] Ustawy o rehabilitacji ofiar represji politycznych (Ustawa rehabilitacyjna), na który powołuje się Wydział Konsularny, dotyczy rehabilitacji osób poddanych represjom karnym z powodów politycznych. Ponieważ w ramach śledztwa katyńskiego nr 159 nie ustalono, na podstawie którego przepisu Kodeksu karnego w redakcji z 1926 r.

Wincenty Wołk i inni polscy oficerowie pociągnięci zostali do odpowiedzialności karnej, jak również z uwagi na zniszczenie dokumentów w sprawie, brak jest podstaw do ich rehabilitacji. W dniu 1 lutego 2006 r. Wydział Konsularny przekazał pierwszej skarżącej Pani Witomile Wołk-Jezierskiej odpowiedź Głównej Prokuratury Wojskowej z dnia 18 stycznia 2006 r.

12. W dniu 21 stycznia 2007 r. druga skarżąca, Pani Ojcumiła Wołk, zwróciła się do Głównej Prokuratury Wojskowej z wnioskiem o rehabilitację jej męża na podstawie Ustawy rehabilitacyjnej. Druga skarżąca uzasadniła swój wniosek tym, iż jej mąż był ofiarą morderstwa politycznego dokonanego przez funkcjonariuszy NKWD w wykonaniu decyzji z dnia 5 marca 1940 r. Biura Politycznego Komitetu Centralnego Partii Komunistycznej ZSRR. Jednocześnie, podkreśliła ona, iż nazwisko męża znajduje się na liście więźniów obozu NKWD w Kozielsku, a jego ciało zostało zidentyfikowane podczas ekshumacji w 1943 r.

13. W dniu 12 lutego 2007 r. Główna Prokuratura Wojskowa udzieliła odpowiedzi

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

217

na wniosek o rehabilitację Wincentego Wołka. Prokuratura wskazała, iż Ustawa rehabilitacyjna ma zastosowanie tylko do osób, które poddane były represjom z powodów politycznych. W dalszej kolejności pismo prokuratury informuje, iż rosyjskie organy sądowe, organy prokuratury i organy spraw wewnętrznych przy rozstrzyganiu tego, czy dana osoba podlega rehabilitacji, „kierują się materiałami spraw karnych i administracyjnych, jak również innymi udokumentowanymi informacjami, które dały podstawę do zastosowania represji”. Ponieważ w przypadku Wincentego Wołka brakuje informacji o jego sprawie karnej lub jakichkolwiek innych informacji o zastosowaniu wobec niego represji, „pytanie o jego rehabilitację lub uznanie za niepodlegającego rehabilitacji nie może zostać rozpatrzone co do meritum”.

14. W dniu 21 lutego 2008 r. pełnomocnicy reprezentujący wszystkich skarżących złożyli

w Głównej Prokuraturze Wojskowej wniosek o rehabilitację krewnych skarżących zamordowanych w 1940 r. przez NKWD. We wniosku o rehabilitację przywołano szereg okoliczności faktycznych i prawnych. Skarżący wskazali, iż język wniosku Lawrentija Berii z dnia 5 marca 1940 r. oraz decyzji Biura Politycznego Komitetu Centralnego Partii Komunistycznej ZSRR z tego samego dnia w sprawie rozstrzelania polskich jeńców wojennych, „zatwardziałych wrogów władzy radzieckiej, pełnych nienawiści do ustroju radzieckiego”, jest przejawem politycznego motywu represji.

Ponadto, rozstrzelanie polskich obywateli na podstawie decyzji niesądowego organu tzw. „trojki” dokonane pod wpływem wskazanego motywu ma charakter represji politycznych w rozumieniu art. 1 Ustawy rehabilitacyjnej i kwalifikuje się jako podstawa rehabilitacji na podstawie art. 3 lit. „b” [б] i “e” [e] Ustawy rehabilitacyjnej.

Skarżący odwołali się również do treści decyzji Rządu Federacji Rosyjskiej nr 1247 z dnia 19 października 1996 r. w sprawie ustanowienia kompleksów memoriałowych w miejscach, w których obywatele Polski i ZSRR, „ofiary totalitarnych represji”, zostali pochowani. Na zakończenie skarżący wezwali prokuraturę do rozpatrzenia wniosku, wydania zaświadczenia o zastosowaniu represji politycznych wobec krewnych skarżących, a w przypadku braku podstaw do rehabilitacji – przekazania sprawy do sądu.

15. W dniu 13 marca 2008 r. Główna Prokuratura Wojskowa oddaliła wniosek o rehabilitację złożony przez pełnomocnika w imieniu wszystkich skarżących. Oświadczyła, iż nie jest w stanie określić podstaw prawnych dla zastosowania w 1940 r. represji wobec polskich obywateli. W szczególności, prokuratura wskazała, iż mimo istnienia szeregu dokumentów na temat przekazania krewnych skarżących z obozów NKWD w Ostaszkowie, Kozielsku i Starobielsku do Kalinina, Smoleńska i Charkowa, w toku wspólnych prac polskich, ukraińskich, białoruskich i rosyjskich organów śledztwa katyńskiego nie odnaleziono akt karnych ani żadnych innych dokumentów na temat ich prześladowania w 1940 r. Utracono również możliwości odtworzenia wspomnianych dokumentów. Przy braku wspomnianych dokumentów w sprawach karnych lub administracyjnych potwierdzających zastosowanie represji, brak jest możliwości wydania w oparciu o Ustawę rehabilitacyjną postanowienia w sprawie rehabilitacji lub jej odmowy. Według prokuratury nie ma również możliwości zastosowania wspomnianych przepisów ustawy per analogiam do sytuacji krewnych

218

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka skarżących. Co więcej, prokuratura poinformowała, iż wśród szczątków ludzkich ekshumowanych w toku śledztwa katyńskiego nr 159 nie odnaleziono szczątków krewnych skarżących.

16. W dniu 4 maja 2008 r. pełnomocnicy reprezentujący wszystkich skarżących złożyli

w oparciu o art. 254 Kodeksu postępowania cywilnego jedenastostronicową skargę sądową na „odpowiedź” prokuratury z dnia 13 marca 2008 r. W skardze podkreślono, iż zgodnie z art. 8 akapit 3 Ustawy rehabilitacyjnej odpowiedź prokuratury pozbawiona była właściwej formy procesowej. Na podstawie wspomnianego przepisu postanowienie prokuratury powinno mieć formę zaświadczenia o rehabilitacji za poddanie represjom politycznym a w przypadku braku podstaw do rehabilitacji w sprawach wymienionych w art. 3 „a”, „b”, „d” i „f” Ustawy rehabilitacyjnej – skierowania sprawy do właściwego sądu. W dalszej kolejności skarżący podkreślił, iż decyzja Biura Politycznego Komitetu Centralnego Partii Komunistycznej ZSRR z dnia 5 marca 1940 r. wyraźnie wykluczyła zastosowanie procedury karnej wobec krewnych skarżących. Zamiast tego decyzje o rozstrzelaniu polskich oficerów podejmowane były przez tzw. „trojki” będące niesądowymi organami ZSRR. Dlatego, stanowisko prokuratury o braku możliwości wydania postanowienia o rehabilitacji z uwagi na brak dokumentów w sprawach karnych wydaje się nieprzekonywujące.

Stanowisko to jest nieuzasadnione również w świetle postanowienia z dnia 21 września 2004 r. o umorzeniu śledztwa katyńskiego nr 159, w którym prokuratura przyznała, iż w stosunku do polskich obywateli dopuszczono się przestępstwa.

W dalszej kolejności skarżący podali szereg przykładów rosyjskich dokumentów potwierdzających zastosowanie w 1940 r. represji politycznych wobec polskich obywateli przez „totalitarny reżim”, a tym samym uzasadniających konieczność ich rehabilitacji. Skarżący powołali się również w swojej argumentacji na art. 8 Konwencji o ochronie praw człowieka i podstawowych wolności oraz orzeczenie Europejskiego Trybunału Praw Człowieka w sprawie Moreno Gomez p. Hiszpanii.

Na zakończenie, skarżący zwrócili się do sądu z wnioskiem o uznanie postanowienia prokuratury w sprawie rehabilitacji polskich obywateli w formie „odpowiedzi” z dnia 13 marca 2008 r. za bezprawne, jak również o zobowiązanie prokuratury do ponownego rozpatrzenia wniosku skarżących i wydania postanowienia o rehabilitacji ich krewnych.

17. W dniu 16 maja 2008 r. Moskiewski Sąd Rejonowy w Chamownikach postanowił,

iż zgodnie z literalną interpretacją art. 8 Ustawy rehabilitacyjnej w związku z art. 1 Ustawy o skardze na działania i decyzje naruszające prawa i wolności obywateli, skarga na odmowę wydania przez prokuraturę postanowienia o rehabilitacji może zostać wniesiona tylko przez obywatela, którego prawa zostały naruszone. W konsekwencji, zdaniem sądu skarżący nie mogli wnieść skargi sądowej na podstawie art. 254 Kodeksu postępowania cywilnego.

18. W dniu 4 sierpnia 2008 r. pełnomocnicy reprezentujący wszystkich skarżących

wnieśli do Moskiewskiego Sądu Rejonowego w Chamownikach drugą uzupełnioną skargę sądową na brak postanowienia Głównej Prokuratury Wojskowej. Treść skargi stanowiła powtórzenie argumentacji pierwotnej skargi sądowej złożonej w dniu 4 maja 2008 r. Sprawa zarejestrowana została pod nr 2-2177/08.

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

219

19. W dniu 24 października 2008 r. pełnomocnicy reprezentujący wszystkich skarżących

złożyli w sądzie dwa wnioski. Na podstawie pierwszego wniosku skarżący wnieśli o udostępnienie przez Główną Prokuraturę Wojskową utajnionego postanowienia z dnia 21 września 2004 r. o umorzeniu śledztwa katyńskiego nr 159, jak również wszelkich innych dokumentów tego śledztwa dotyczących bezpośrednio krewnych skarżących. Na podstawie drugiego wniosku skarżący wnieśli o przekazanie przedmiotowej sprawy Moskiewskiemu Sądowi Miejskiemu właściwemu w sprawach cywilnych, w których pojawia się kwestia tajemnicy państwowej. Obydwa wnioski uzasadniono tym, iż załączenie wspomnianych powyżej dokumentów do akt przedmiotowego postępowania oraz ich przekazanie do Moskiewskiego Sądu Miejskiego pozwoli na uzyskanie niezbędnych informacji na temat represji stosowanych wobec krewnych skarżących. W szczególności, pozwoli to na podważenie stanowiska prokuratury, iż w toku śledztwa katyńskiego nr 159 nie odnaleziono akt spraw karnych oraz innego rodzaju dokumentów informujących o stosowaniu represji.

20. W dniu 24 października 2008 r. Moskiewski Sąd Rejonowy w Chamownikach

oddalił skargę sądową z dnia 4 sierpnia 2008 r. Sąd stwierdził, iż co prawda po zbadaniu list osób osadzonych w obozach NKWD w Ostaszkowie, Starobielsku i Kozielsku na listach ujawniono nazwiska krewnych skarżących, o tyle ekshumacje przeprowadzone w toku śledztwa katyńskiego nr 159 doprowadziły do zidentyfikowania zaledwie 22 ciał. Wśród 22 zidentyfikowanych szczątków ludzkich nie było szczątków krewnych ofiar. Los krewnych ofiar pozostaje nadal nieznany. Sąd uznał również, iż żaden akt represji wobec krewnych skarżących nie został stwierdzony. W konsekwencji, prokuratura odpowiadając na wniosek skarżących o rehabilitację ich krewnych nie wydała zaświadczenia na podstawie Ustawy rehabilitacyjnej, lecz udzieliła odpowiedzi zgodnie z przepisami właściwymi dla wszelkich wniosków i skarg. Ponadto, sąd stwierdził, iż o ile zaświadczenia o rehabilitacji mogą zostać wydane krewnym ofiar, o tyle w przypadku braku podstaw do rehabilitacji prokuratura przekazuje sprawę do sądu, ale wyłącznie na wniosek zainteresowanego poszkodowanego. W dniu 31 października 2008 r. skarżący odwołali się od wyroku Moskiewskiego Sądu Rejonowego w Chamownikach z dnia 24 października 2008 r.

21. W postanowieniu z dnia 24 października 2008 r. Moskiewski Sąd Rejonowy

w Chamownikach odrzucił również wniosek pełnomocników skarżących o upublicznienie utajnionej decyzji z dnia 21 września 2004 r. i przekazanie sprawy do Moskiewskiego Sądu Miejskiego. W dniu 5 listopada 2008 r. wniesiona została skarga kasacyjna do Moskiewskiego Sądu Miejskiego na postanowienie z dnia 24 października 2008 r. Pełnomocnicy skarżących wnieśli o zmianę postanowienia z dnia 24 października 2008 r. oraz o ponowne rozpatrzenie sprawy w pierwszej instancji przez inny skład sędziowski.

22. W dniu 25 listopada 2008 r. Moskiewski Sąd Miejski w lakoniczny sposób oddalił zarówno apelację z dnia 31 października 2008 r., jak i skargę kasacyjną z dnia 24 października 2008 r.

220

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka Odwołanie od decyzji w sprawie umorzenia śledztwa nr 159

23. W dniu 4 maja 2008 r. pełnomocnicy reprezentujący wszystkich skarżących złożyli

w oparciu o art. 125 Kodeksu postępowania karnego zażalenie na postanowienie Głównej Prokuratury Wojskowej z dnia 21 września 2004 r. o umorzeniu tzw. śledztwa katyńskiego nr 159.

24. W dniu 5 czerwca 2008 r. Moskiewski Sąd Rejonowy w Chamownikach odrzucił zażalenie z przyczyn proceduralnych. Sąd uznał się za niewłaściwy w sprawie.

25. W dniu 7 lipca 2008 r. Wydział Karny Sądu Miejskiego w Moskwie podtrzymał postanowienie sądu pierwszej instancji.

26. W dniu 20 sierpnia 2008 r. pełnomocnicy skarżących wnieśli do Moskiewskiego

Okręgowego Sądu Wojskowego zażalenie na postanowienie z dnia 21 września 2004 r. o umorzeniu śledztwa katyńskiego nr 159. W zażaleniu podniesiono, że krewni skarżących znajdowali się wśród przetrzymywanych polskich oficerów rozstrzelanych na podstawie decyzji Biura Politycznego Komitetu Centralnego Komunistycznej Partii ZSR. Skarżący nawiązali do wypowiedzi Głównego Prokuratora Wojskowego, który wskazał, iż dzięki informacjom uzyskanym „od ukraińskich, białoruskich i polskich kolegów [ustalono, że] na terytorium byłego ZSRR przetrzymywano 14 542 osoby. Potwierdzono śmierć 1 803 …” . Mimo, iż z wypowiedzi Głównego Prokuratora Wojskowego wynika, iż w stosunku do polskich oficerów popełniono przestępstwo skutkujące wyrządzeniem szkody fizycznej, psychicznej i moralnej a z art. 42 ust. 8 Kodeksu postępowania karnego wynika przejście praw pokrzywdzonego po jego śmierci na najbliższych członków jego rodziny, skarżącym nie przyznano statusu pokrzywdzonych w śledztwie katyńskim nr 159. Nie mieli oni możliwości składania wniosków i uwag, dostępu do akt sprawy, jak również otrzymywania kopi postanowień. Skarżący twierdzili, że śledztwo było nieefektywne i sprzeczne z wymogami art. 2 Konwencji, ponieważ skarżącym nie przyznano statusu pokrzywdzonych oraz nie podjęto próby pobrania od nich próbek biologicznych w celu identyfikacji wydobywanych szczątków ludzkich. W konsekwencji, skarżący zwrócili się do sądu z wnioskiem o uznanie postanowienia z dnia 21 września 2004 r. za bezprawne oraz do prokuratury do przyznania skarżącym statusu pokrzywdzonych.

27. W dniu 14 października 2008 r. Moskiewski Okręgowy Sąd Wojskowy oddalił zażalenie.

Stwierdził, iż po analizie materiałów śledztwa katyńskiego nr 159 bezspornym pozostaje fakt śmierci w wyniku rozstrzelania 1803 polskich obywateli przetrzymywanych uprzednio w obozach NKWD w Ostaszkowie, Starobielsku i Kozielsku, i których szczątki były ekshumowane. Sąd stwierdził, że w 1943 r. Komisja Międzynarodowa oraz Komisja Techniczna Polskiego Czerwonego Krzyża ekshumowały, a następnie ponownie pochowały szczątki ludzkie bez przeprowadzenia ich formalnej identyfikacji oraz bez ich policzenia. W trakcie kolejnej ekshumacji w 1991 r. zidentyfikowano tylko 22 osoby, wśród których nie było krewnych skarżących. Sąd Wojskowy powołując się na zawartość tomów nr 3, 11, 120 i 183 śledztwa katyńskiego przyznał, iż nazwiska krewnych skarżących rzeczywiście znalazły się na listach obozów NKWD w Ostaszkowie, Starobielsku i Kozielsku, niemniej, „w toku śledztwa katyńskiego nie ustalono informacji na temat

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

221

dalszych losów tych osób”. Ich ciała nie zostały zidentyfikowane. Nie ma dowodów na to, że krewni skarżących ponieśli śmierć w rezultacie przestępstwa przekroczenia uprawnień (art. 193-17 Kodeksu karnego ZSRR w redakcji z 1926 r.), o którym mowa w postanowieniu o umorzeniu śledztwa katyńskiego nr 159 z dnia 21 września 2004 r., a zatem i podstaw do przyznania statusu pokrzywdzonych krewnym skarżących na podstawie art. 42 Kodeksu postępowania karnego. Sąd zauważył również, że odpowiedź prokuratury z dnia 21 kwietnia 1998 r. (sygnatura pisma nr 3y-6818-90) informująca o rozstrzelaniu Wincentego Wołka, więźnia obozu NKWD w Kozielsku, wraz z innymi więźniami w 1940 r., została udzielona przed zakończeniem śledztwa katyńskiego nr 159. Rezultaty przeprowadzonego śledztwa katyńskiego nie potwierdziły informacji na temat losu Wincentego Wołka. Ponadto, sąd zaznaczył, że utajnione materiały w sprawie śledztwa katyńskiego nr 159 nie mogą być udostępniane „przedstawicielom obcego państwa”.

28. W dniu 22 października 2008 r. pełnomocnicy skarżących wnieśli skargę kasacyjną,

w której podkreślono, że brak informacji na temat dalszych losów krewnych skarżących był rezultatem nieefektywnego śledztwa. Zdaniem skarżących podczas posiedzenia sądu przedstawione zostały wyłącznie woluminy nr 3, 11, 120 i 183 akt śledztwa katyńskiego nr 159, postanowienie z dnia 21 września 2004 r. o jego umorzeniu oraz jeden tom akt postępowania nadzorczego. Jest powszechnie znanym faktem, że podczas ekshumacji w 1943 r. wydobyto szczątki 4243 osób, z których 2730 zostało zidentyfikowanych. Wśród zidentyfikowanych znajdowały się szczątki trzech osób, których krewni występowali w sprawie. Skarżący twierdzili, że fakt ten stoi w sprzeczności ze stwierdzeniem sądu, iż podczas ekshumacji w 1943 r. nie przeprowadzono identyfikacji zwłok. W 1991 r. identyfikacji dwudziestu dwóch osób dokonano na podstawie wojskowych nieśmiertelników odnalezionych w miejscach pochówku, natomiast śledczy nie przedsięwzięli innych środków w celu zidentyfikowania wydobytych szczątków. Przyznanie skarżącym statusu pokrzywdzonych umożliwiłoby przeprowadzenie identyfikacji szczątków nie tylko na podstawie nieśmiertelników, jak miało to miejsce w 1991 r., ale również za pomocą metod genetycznych. Jednocześnie, na posiedzeniu sądowym należało przeprowadzić analizę pełnego tekstu protokołu z prac ekshumacyjnych z 1991 r. Powinna również zostać wyjaśniona okoliczność, dlaczego dokonano identyfikacji tylko 22 szczątków, a nie dokonano identyfikacji pozostałych. Skarżący podkreślili, iż ich krewni zostali rozstrzelani, ponieważ akta śledztwa katyńskiego nr 159 nie zawierają żadnej informacji, która pozwalałaby wysnuć wniosek, iż którykolwiek z polskich oficerów wywiezionych z obozów NKWD pozostał przy życiu lub zmarł z przyczyn naturalnych. Faktowi zastosowania w stosunku do krewnych skarżących przymusu państwowego nie przeczy również odpowiedź prokuratury z dnia 21 kwietnia 1998 r. (sygnatura pisma nr 3y-6818-90) informująca o rozstrzelaniu Wincentego Wołka wraz z innymi więźniami w 1940 r. Przedstawiciele prokuratury nie przedłożyli żadnych dowodów na to, że stanowisko organów śledczych uległo zmianie. Mając to na uwadze krewnym skarżących powinien zostać przyznany status pokrzywdzonych w rozumieniu art. 42 kodeksu postępowania karnego. Skarżący uznali również, iż śledztwo katyńskie nr 159

222

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka było nieefektywne w rozumieniu art. 2 i 8 Konwencji o ochronie praw człowieka i podstawowych wolności z 1950 r. Na zakończenie skarżący wnieśli o uznanie postanowienia z dnia 21 września 2004 r. o umorzenia śledztwa katyńskiego nr 159 – między innymi z powodu śmierci podejrzanych – za bezprawne oraz o zobowiązanie prokuratury do wydania postanowienia o przyznaniu skarżącym statusu pokrzywdzonych i umożliwienia im realizacji ich praw wynikających z art. 42 i 45 Kodeksu postępowania karnego.

29. W dniu 12 grudnia 2008 r. pełnomocnicy reprezentujący wszystkich skarżących

uzupełnili skargę kasacyjną z dnia 22 października 2008 r. poprzez wskazanie, że przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka toczy się sprawa Janowiec i Trybowski, która została zakomunikowana Rządowi Federacji Rosyjskiej. Mając to na uwadze zwrócili się do sądu z wnioskiem o zmianę postanowienia Moskiewskiego Okręgowego Sądu Wojskowego z dnia 14 października 2008 r. oraz o ponowne rozpatrzenie sprawy.

30. W dniu 29 stycznia 2009 r. Izba Wojskowa Sądu Najwyższego Federacji Rosyjskiej

podtrzymała w całości orzeczenie z 14 października 2008 r. Sąd powtórzył in extenso obszerne fragmenty wniosków Moskiewskiego Okręgowego Sądu Wojskowego. Sąd powtórzył między innymi, iż odpowiedź prokuratury z dnia 21 kwietnia 1998 r. (sygnatura pisma nr 3y-6818-90) informująca o rozstrzelaniu Wincentego Wołka wraz z innymi więźniami w 1940 r., została udzielona przed zakończeniem śledztwa katyńskiego nr 159. Rezultaty przeprowadzonego śledztwa katyńskiego nie potwierdziły informacji na temat losu Wincentego Wołka. Sąd powtórzył jednocześnie, że w wyniku śledztwa katyńskiego bezspornym pozostaje fakt śmierci w wyniku rozstrzelania 1 803 polskich obywateli. Organom rosyjskim udało się zidentyfikować zaledwie 22 osoby. Poza obszernie powtórzonymi wnioskami Moskiewskiego Okręgowego Sądu Wojskowego, Sąd Najwyższy wskazał, iż w materiałach sprawy między danymi osobowymi skarżących a danymi osobowymi ich pomordowanych krewnych pojawiły się rozbieżności, które uniemożliwiają przeprowadzenie badań genetycznych pozwalających na ustalenie pokrewieństwa z osobami przetrzymywanymi w obozach NKWD, których szczątki nie zostały zidentyfikowane. Ponadto, według Sądu Najwyższego nie ma możliwości wznowienia śledztwa katyńskiego nr 159, ponieważ upłynął termin przedawnienia odpowiedzialności karnej osób, których dotyczyło postanowienie o umorzeniu śledztwa z dnia 21 września 2004 r. Wznowienie śledztwa byłoby wówczas niezgodne z art. 24 ust. 1 pkt. 3 Kodeksu postępowania karnego. Sąd wskazał, iż podstawą umorzenia śledztwa katyńskiego była przede wszystkim śmierć podejrzanych.

Z kolei pozostałe podstawy umorzenia śledztwa katyńskiego nr 159 uznać należy za „humanitarne”.

B.

Współpraca polsko-rosyjska w celu wyjaśnienia okoliczności popełnienia Zbrodni Katyńskiej oraz czynności podejmowane przez polskie organy wymiaru sprawiedliwości w celu wyjaśnienia okoliczności popełnienia Zbrodni Katyńskiej oraz uzyskania dostępu do akt śledztwa nr 159 prowadzonego przez Główną Prokuraturę Wojskową Federacji Rosyjskiej.

31. W dniu 13 kwietnia 1990 r. agencja TASS nadała komunikat, że zbrodni katyńskiej winny

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

223

jest NKWD ZSRR. Stosowny fragment komunikatu stwierdzał: „Całokształt ujawnionych materiałów archiwalnych pozwala wyciągnąć wniosek o bezpośredniej odpowiedzialności Berii, Mierkułowa i ludzi im podległych za zbrodnie popełnioną w Katyńskim Lesie …”.

32. W dniu 22 marca 1990 r. wydane zostało przez prokuratora Prokuratury Obwodowej

w Charkowie postanowienie o wszczęciu śledztwa w sprawie masowych pochówków rozstrzelanych w latach 30-tych i 40-tych obywateli w rejonie parku miasta Charkowa, tj. o przestępstwo z art. 94, 98 i 113 kodeksu karnego USRR. Na mocy postanowienia z dnia 27 września 1990 roku przedmiotowe postępowanie, w sprawie rozstrzelania jeńców polskich, przejęła do dalszego prowadzenia Główna Prokuratura Wojskowa Związku Socjalistycznych Republik Radzieckich.

33. W dniu 25 grudnia 1990 r. Główna Prokuratura Wojskowa zwróciła się do Prokuratora

Generalnego RP z wnioskiem o pomoc prawną w ramach prowadzonego postępowania nr 159. W wykonaniu tego wezwania strona polska przedstawiła szereg materiałów dowodowych, które zostały przesłane pismami datowanymi: 11 kwietnia 1992 r., 28 czerwca 1991 r., 11 kwietnia 1992 r., 9 października 1992 r., 19 lutego 1993 r., maj 1995 r. oraz 16 sierpnia 1995 r.

34. Latem i jesienią 1991 r. w Charkowie, Miednoje i Katyniu polscy i rosyjscy prokuratorzy

z udziałem biegłych specjalistów przeprowadzili prace sondażowo-ekshumacyjne.

W latach 1994-1996 polscy specjaliści kontynuowali prace na potrzeby przyszłej budowy cmentarzy wojennych. Ich podstawą były dwie umowy dwustronne – między Rządem RP z Rządem Federacji Rosyjskiej z dnia 22 lutego 1994 r. o grobach i miejscach pamięci oraz między Rządem RP a Rządem Ukrainy z dnia 21 marca 1994 r. o ochronie miejsc pamięci i spoczynku ofiar wojny i represji politycznych.

35. W dniu 14 października 1992 r. prezydent FR Borys Jelcyn ujawnił, że wyrok śmierci na

polskich oficerów wydał J. Stalin i Biuro Polityczne KC WKP(b). Jego wysłannik, Szef Państwowej Służby Archiwalnej Federacji Rosyjskiej, prof. Rudolf Piechoja, przekazał władzom RP tzw. Teczkę nr 1, w której znalazła się m.in. decyzja Biura Politycznego KC WKP(b) z 5 marca 1940 r. o rozstrzelaniu 25 700 polskich oficerów i policjantów z trzech obozów zbiorczych NKWD w Starobielsku, Kozielsku i Ostaszkowie oraz Polaków przetrzymywanych w więzieniach tzw. Zachodniej Ukrainy i tzw. Zachodniej Białorusi.

36. Polscy historycy na pewien czas otrzymali dostęp do rosyjskich archiwów, w wyniku czego

powstało wspólne z rosyjskimi archiwistami 4-tomowe wydanie „Katyń. Dokumenty zbrodni”.

37. Podczas wizyty oficjalnej w Polsce w dniu 25 sierpnia 1993 r. prezydent FR B. Jelcyn wyraził

ubolewanie z powodu zbrodni katyńskiej i złożył hołd pomordowanym przed Krzyżem Katyńskim na Powązkach.

38. W połowie lat 90 - tych stronie polskiej przekazano 93 tomy kserokopii akt śledztwa Głównej

Prokuratury Wojskowej Federacji Rosyjskiej w sprawie Zbrodni Katyńskiej. Przekazane materiały zawierają nieuwierzytelnione, częstokroć nieczytelne kserokopie dokumentów, które z tych względów nie mogą stanowić dowodu w rozumieniu prawa polskiego. Ponadto numeracja poszczególnych tomów akt nie zachowuje ciągłości, co może świadczyć, iż nie są one kompletne.

224

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka

39. W dniach 29 - 31 maja 1995 roku w Warszawie odbyło się robocze spotkanie przedstawicieli

prokuratur Republiki Białoruś, Polski, Ukrainy i Federacji Rosyjskiej, podczas którego omówiono stan śledztwa Głównej Prokuratury Wojskowej Federacji Rosyjskiej w sprawie Zbrodni Katyńskiej i przyjęto ustalenia odnośnie kierunków dalszych czynności śledczych.

Uczestnicy spotkania uzgodnili, że Główna Prokuratura Wojskowa Federacji Rosyjskiej zwróci się do prokuratur Białorusi i Ukrainy z wnioskami o udzielenie pomocy prawnej w zakresie ustalenia okoliczności rozstrzelania w 1940 roku 7305 aresztowanych obywateli polskich. Strona białoruska i ukraińska zobowiązały się do udostępniania stronie polskiej informacji o stanie realizacji tych wniosków i do przekazywania kopii zebranych materiałów.

Strona polska zobowiązała się do udzielania pomocy prawnej i przekazywania wszelkich posiadanych dokumentów i informacji, odnoszących się do tej sprawy.

40. W dniu 27 sierpnia 2001 roku Minister Sprawiedliwości – Prokurator Generalny RP

zwrócił się do Prokuratora Generalnego FR o przekazanie Instytutowi Pamięci Narodowej uwierzytelnionych kserokopii kompletnych akt śledztwa Głównej Prokuratury Wojskowej Federacji Rosyjskiej w sprawie Zbrodni Katyńskiej. Pismem z dnia 12 listopada 2001 roku Prokurator Generalny Federacji Rosyjskiej poinformował Prokuratora Generalnego RP, że ,,(…) obecnie na terytorium Rosji zostały wykonane wszystkie możliwe czynności śledcze niezbędne do powzięcia ostatecznego postanowienia, które nie może być jednak powzięte wskutek braku materiałów wstępnego śledztwa z Prokuratury Generalnej Ukrainy.

Wpływanie materiałów jest pod naszą stałą kontrolą (…)”. W piśmie tym zaznaczono, że stronie polskiej przekazano ,,(…) kopię sprawy karnej wraz ze wszystkimi protokółami z czynności śledczych i innymi dokumentami (…)”. Ponadto stwierdzono, że w latach 1994-1996 nie prowadzono czynności śledczych w tej sprawie, stąd prokuratura rosyjska nie może przekazać stronie polskiej żadnej dokumentacji w tym zakresie.

41. W dniu 17 stycznia 2002 r. podczas wizyty w Polsce prezydent FR W. Putin potępił zbrodnię

katyńską. Padły wówczas także stwierdzenia o poszukiwaniu w ustawodawstwie rosyjskim możliwości zadośćuczynienia polskim ofiarom represji stalinowskich.

42. W dniu 4 sierpnia 2004 roku w siedzibie Głównej Prokuratury Wojskowej Federacji

Rosyjskiej w Moskwie odbyło się spotkanie Prezesa Instytutu Pamięci Narodowej oraz prokuratorów IPN z Głównym Prokuratorem Wojskowym Federacji Rosyjskiej, którego celem było omówienie zagadnień związanych ze śledztwem prowadzonym przez Główną Prokuraturę Wojskową Federacji Rosyjskiej w sprawie Zbrodni Katyńskiej. W trakcie spotkania poruszono m.in. kwestię kwalifikacji prawno-karnej Zbrodni Katyńskiej oraz udostępnienia prokuratorom IPN całości – 168 tomów, akt śledztwa. Strona rosyjska nie zgodziła się ze stanowiskiem IPN, że jest to zbrodnia ludobójstwa argumentując, że spośród 250 tys. polskich jeńców wojennych 90 proc. zostało zwolnionych, a Zbrodnia Katyńska dotyczy 10 proc. Zatem akt ten nie był częścią planu eksterminacji całości lub części polskiej grupy narodowej.

43. W dniu 12 sierpnia 2004 roku Prezes Instytutu Pamięci Narodowej skierował do Głównego Prokuratora Wojskowego Federacji Rosyjskiej A. Sawienkowa pismo, w którym powołując się na deklarację udostępnienia stronie polskiej akt śledztwa, wskazał przedstawicieli IPN upoważnionych do wykonania czynności zapoznania się z aktami i odebrania uwierzytelnionych kserokopii. W piśmie zawarto stwierdzenie, że przedstawiciele IPN są

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

225

gotowi do rozpoczęcia tych czynności w końcu sierpnia 2004 roku. Na to pismo Główna Prokuratura Wojskowa Federacji Rosyjskiej nie udzieliła odpowiedzi. Także na pismo Dyrektora Głównej Komisji ścigania Zbrodni przeciwko Narodowi Polskiemu z 9 września 2004 r. z prośbą o umożliwienie przedstawicielom IPN zapoznania się z aktami począwszy od 4 października 2004 r. strona rosyjska nie udzieliła odpowiedzi.

44. W dniu 13 września 2004 r. IPN został poinformowany przez Ambasadę FR w Warszawie, że Główna Prokuratura Wojskowa Federacji Rosyjskiej planuje zakończenie śledztwa w sprawie Zbrodni Katyńskiej we wrześniu 2004 r. co uniemożliwia przyjazd prokuratora IPN do Moskwy. Powrót do kwestii zapoznania się z aktami stanie się możliwy po zakończeniu śledztwa.

45. Na spotkaniu Prezydentów RP i FR w Normandii z okazji przypadającej wówczas 60-tej rocznicy rozpoczęcia ofensywy aliantów, Prezydent FR poinformował Prezydenta RP, że Główna Prokuratura Wojskowa Federacji Rosyjskiej w dniu 21 września 2004 r. umorzyła śledztwo w sprawie Zbrodni Katyńskiej.

46. W dniach 30 września i 13 października 2004 Prezes IPN zwracał się za pośrednictwem Ministra Sprawiedliwości RP do Głównego Prokuratora Wojskowego FR o udostępnienie akt śledztwa oraz postanowienia o jego umorzeniu, ale nie uzyskał odpowiedzi.

47. W dniu 30 listopada 2004 roku Oddziałowa Komisja Ścigania Zbrodni przeciwko Narodowi

Polskiemu w Warszawie wszczęła śledztwo w sprawie Zbrodni Katyńskiej. W dniu 2 marca 2005 roku Ambasada FR w Warszawie poinformowała, że Główna Prokuratura Wojskowa Federacji Rosyjskiej jest gotowa udostępnić stronie polskiej tylko 67 tomów aktów śledztwa, bowiem ich pozostała część jest objęta klauzulą tajności. Przekazano także informację, że strona rosyjska nie widzi możliwości sporządzenia uwierzytelnionych kopii potrzebnych dokumentów.

48. W dniu 8 marca 2005 roku Oddziałowa Komisja Ścigania Zbrodni przeciwko Narodowi

Polskiemu w Warszawie, za pośrednictwem Ministerstwa Sprawiedliwości RP, skierowała do Prokuratury Generalnej FR wniosek o udzielenie pomocy prawnej do prowadzonego przez Komisję śledztwa w sprawie Zbrodni Katyńskiej poprzez przekazanie kopii lub odpisów całości akt śledztwa w tej sprawie, prowadzonego przez Główną Prokuraturę Wojskową Federacji Rosyjskiej oraz postanowienia o umorzeniu tegoż postępowania.

49. W dniu 28 lipca 2005 roku wpłynęła do Instytutu Pamięci Narodowej odpowiedź

Prokuratury Generalnej Federacji Rosyjskiej z dnia 28 czerwca 2005 roku na wniosek Oddziałowej Komisji w Warszawie o udzielenie pomocy prawnej w niniejszym śledztwie.

Z jej treści wynikało, że strona rosyjska udostępni 67 tomów akt sprawy Głównej Prokuratury Wojskowej Federacji Rosyjskiej o nr 159. W piśmie nie wskazano przyczyny nieudostępnienia całości materiałów sprawy, jak również nie odniesiono się do możliwości uzyskania przez stronę polską kopii akt rosyjskiego śledztwa i kopii postanowienia kończącego śledztwo nr 159.

50. Notą z dnia 8 września 2005 r. Federacja Rosyjska poinformowała, że przedstawiciele

IPN mogą zapoznać się z 67 tomami akt rosyjskiego śledztwa, jednakże bez możliwości sporządzenia kserokopii udostępnionych dokumentów. Pozostałe tomy oraz postanowienie

226

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka o umorzeniu śledztwa nr 159 z dnia 21 września 2004 roku nie zostaną udostępnione stronie polskiej, gdyż opatrzone są klauzulą tajności.

51. W dniach 9 - 21 października 2005 roku na zaproszenie Głównej Prokuratury Wojskowej

Federacji Rosyjskiej przebywało w Moskwie trzech prokuratorów IPN, prowadzących śledztwo w sprawie Zbrodni Katyńskiej oraz główny specjalista IPN-Głównej Komisji Ścigania Zbrodni przeciwko Narodowi Polskiemu – historyk. Podczas wizyty zapoznano się z udostępnionymi 67 tomami akt sprawy o nr 159 dot. Zbrodni Katyńskiej i dokonano ich oględzin sporządzając stosowaną dokumentację procesową. Czynność ta nie doprowadziła do uzyskania istotnych informacji na temat Zbrodni Katyńskiej, nie poszerzyła więc istniejącej na ten temat wiedzy. Strona rosyjska nie wyraziła zgody na sporządzenie kserokopii dokumentów poddanych analizie. Prokuratorom IPN nie udostępniono całości materiałów postępowania nr 159 uzasadniając to twierdzeniem, że część z nich objęta została klauzulą tajności. Taką klauzulą opatrzone zostało również postanowienie o umorzeniu śledztwa nr 159 z dnia 21 września 2004 r. i z tego względu, pomimo złożenia przez prokuratorów IPN ponownego wniosku o udostępnienie, nie zostało ono im zaprezentowane.

52. W dniu 28 lutego 2006 r. Wydział Konsularny Ambasady RP w Federacji Rosyjskiej

przekazał do IPN kopię pisma Głównej Prokuratury Wojskowej FR z dnia 18 stycznia 2006 r. odmawiającego uznania zamordowanego w Katyniu Wincentego Wołka i innych polskich oficerów za ofiary represji politycznych na podstawie przepisów ustawy FR „O rehabilitacji ofiar represji politycznych” z 18 października 1991 r.

53. W dniu 22 marca 2006 r. Prezes IPN skierował do Głównego Prokuratora Wojskowego FR

pismo, w którym odniósł się do odpowiedzi strony rosyjskiej z 18 stycznia 2006 r. i przedstawił argumenty prawne przemawiające za możliwością dokonania rehabilitacji wszystkich ofiar Zbrodni Katyńskiej jako osób poddanych represjom politycznym. W szczególności, IPN wskazał, iż w stosunku do dwóch polskich jeńców wojennych rozstrzelanych przez NKWD w 1940 r. zachowały się dokumenty wskazujące podstawę prawną pociągnięcia ich do odpowiedzialności karnej. Skoro znana jest podstawa prawna pociągnięcia polskich jeńców wojennych do odpowiedzialności karnej, powinni oni podlegać rehabilitacji. W dniu 17 maja 2006 r. Główna Prokuratora Wojskowa FR udzieliła odpowiedzi na powyższe pismo Prezesa IPN.

54. W dniu 5 lutego 2008 r. podczas wizyty Premiera RP Donalda Tuska w Moskwie Premier Władimir Putin w rozmowie z Premierem Donaldem Tuskiem stwierdził, że Katyń to zbrodnia stalinowska.

55. W dniu 7 kwietnia 2010 r. w Katyniu w 70 rocznicę Zbrodni Katyńskiej spotkali się Premierzy

Polski i Federacji Rosyjskiej Donald Tusk i Władimir Putin. Podczas wystąpienia Władimir Putin odnosząc się do Zbrodni Katyńskiej powiedział: „Nie ma żadnego usprawiedliwienia dla tych przestępstw. W naszym kraju przyjęta jest jasna polityczna, prawna i moralna ocena przestępstw totalitarnego reżimu. I taka ocena nie podlega jakiejkolwiek rewizji”.

W tym samym dniu podczas wspólnej konferencji prasowej Premierów Donalda Tuska i Władimira Putina jeden z dziennikarzy zwrócił się do Władimira Putina z pytaniem, czy możliwe jest odtajnienie akt rosyjskiego śledztwa katyńskiego umorzonego sześć lat wcześniej oraz czy możliwa jest rehabilitacja polskich oficerów. W odpowiedzi Premier

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

227

Władimir Putin podkreślił, że śledztwo katyńskie wszczęte zostało z inicjatywy strony rosyjskiej, w jego trakcie zgromadzono 4 miliony dokumentów a polskiej stronie przekazano 1 milion stron dokumentów. Premier Władimir Putin podkreślił również, że nic takiego co skrywałoby prawdę o samym przestępstwie, nic co skrywałoby prawdę o mechanizmach tego przestępstwach nie jest nieznane, wszystko zostało ujawnione i pokazane w ramach miliona dokumentów przekazanych stronie polskiej.

56. W dniu 28 kwietnia 2010 r. na oficjalnej stronie internetowej Państwowej Służby Archiwalnej FR opublikowana została zawartość tzw. Teczki nr 1 (por. paragraf 35).

57. W dniu 8 maja 2010 r. podczas spotkania na Kremlu Prezydent FR Dimitrij Miedjedjew przekazał Marszałkowi Sejmu RP p.o. Prezydenta RP Bronisławowi Komorowskiemu 67 tomów akt śledztwa katyńskiego.

58. W dniu 18 czerwca 2010 r. Główny Prokurator Wojskowy Federacji Rosyjskiej S. Fridinskij

zauważył, że śledztwo katyńskie nie może zostać wznowione ze względu na przepisy krajowe, zwłaszcza kodeksu postępowania karnego. Zdaniem prokuratora nie można wszcząć śledztwa karnego, a już wszczęte powinno być umorzone, jeżeli upłynął termin przedawnienia odpowiedzialności karnej.

C. Ogólna informacja na temat losu krewnych skarżących oparta na informacjach znajdujących się w dokumentach będących w posiadaniu władz rosyjskich 59. Rząd Polski pragnie zwrócić uwagę Trybunału, iż toku rosyjskiego śledztwa katyńskiego

nr 159 FR weszła w posiadanie materiałów świadczących o śmierci co najmniej czterech polskich obywateli – Wincentego Wołka, Stanisława Rodowicza, Stanisława Mieleckiego i Ryszarda Żołędziowskiego, których krewni są skarżącymi w niniejszej sprawie.

Jednocześnie, te same materiały uprawdopodabniają w stopniu wystarczającym śmierć pozostałych polskich obywateli – Stanisława Uziembło, Szymona Tomaszewskiego, Aleksandra Wielebnowskiego, Stefana Ercharda, Stanisława Augusta Malewicza i Michała Adamczyka, których krewni są również skarżącymi w przedmiotowej sprawie.

60. Śmierć Wincentego Wołka, Stanisława Rodowicza i Stanisława Mieleckiego potwierdzają wyniki prac ekshumacyjnych z 1943 r. w Katyniu.

61. Śmierć Ryszarda Żołędziowskiego potwierdzają wyniki polsko-rosyjskich prac

ekshumacyjnych z 1991 r. w okolicach Charkowa. Wśród szczątków ludzkich należących do polskich obywateli o wyraźnych ranach postrzałowych czaszek, z kieszeni płaszcza jednego z polskich oficerów wydobyto kartkę papieru z listą jeńców obozu NKWD w Starobielsku.

Na kartce widnieje nazwisko Ryszarda Żołędziowskiego, krewnego trzynastego skarżącego (fotokopia kartki w Załączniku 1.K.). Zarówno polski oficer, z kieszeni którego wydobyto zwój zapisanych kartek, jak i Ryszard Żołędziowski byli więźniami obozu w Starobielsku.

W wykonaniu rosyjskiego wniosku o zagraniczną pomoc prawną polscy eksperci sporządzili ekspertyzę, której przedmiotem była m.in. wspomniana kartka. Ekspertyza potwierdziła, iż w tekście znajdującym się na kartce, w punkcie 89 widnieje nazwisko Ryszarda Żołędziowskiego. Ekspertyza kartki, która ujawniła nazwisko polskiego oficera, przekazana została FR w dniu 9 października 1992 r.

228

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka

62. W odpowiedzi na pytanie 3 Trybunału oraz w Załączniku 1 Rząd Polski zamieszcza

zestawienie informacji o losie wszystkich krewnych skarżących, oparte o dokumenty znajdujące się w posiadaniu władz prowadzących tzw. śledztwo katyńskie, uzyskanych bezpośrednio przez prokuraturę rosyjską lub przez organy polskie w ramach pomocy prawnej świadczonej na rzecz FR. W Załączniku 2 Rząd Polski zamieszcza również wykaz niektórych innych dokumentów przekazanych FR w wykonaniu rosyjskiego wniosku o pomoc prawną.

I.

PRAWO

A. Co do dopuszczalności i meritum skargi

63. Rząd Polski przedstawia swoje stanowisko odnośnie dopuszczalności i meritum niniejszej skargi odpowiadając na pytania kierowane do Rządu FR.

1.

Odpowiedź na pytanie nr 1

64. Pierwsze pytanie Trybunału dotyczy tego, czy mając na uwadze wnioski Trybunału na temat

jurysdykcji temporalnej przedstawione w szczególności w sprawie Varnava i inni p. Turcji [WI], wyrok z 18 września 2009 r., skargi nr 16064/90, 16065/90, 16065/90, 16066/90, 16068/90, 16069/90, 16070/90, 16071/90, 16072/90, 16073/90, §§ 136-150), śledztwo w sprawie śmierci krewnych skarżących przeprowadzone przez władze Federacji Rosyjskiej było adekwatne i skuteczne, jak wymaga tego art. 2 Konwencji? W szczególności, czy skarżącym umożliwiono wystarczający dostęp do akt śledztwa włącznie z zebranymi dowodami i decyzjami procesowymi?

65. Rząd Polski pragnie po pierwsze odnieść się do kwestii dopuszczalności jurysdykcji

ratione temporis Trybunału do rozpatrzenia proceduralnego aspektu artykułu 2 Konwencji w niniejszej sprawie. Zdaniem Rządu sprawa ta jest dopuszczalna ratione temporis w aspekcie proceduralnym artykułu 2 Konwencji z następujących powodów.

66. Rząd jest świadomy faktu, iż zgodnie z ogólnymi zasadami prawa międzynarodowego

oraz orzecznictwem organów Konwencji władze rosyjskie nie mogą być uznane za odpowiedzialne w odniesieniu do jakichkolwiek aktów, decyzji, zdarzeń lub zaniechań, które miały miejsce przed 5 maja 1998 r. czyli przed datą wejścia w życie Konwencji wobec Rosji. Jednakże od momentu ratyfikacji Konwencji wszystkie działania i zaniechania państwa muszą być zgodne z Konwencją i jej Protokołami, a kolejne fakty objęte są już jurysdykcją Trybunału nawet, jeżeli są jedynie kontynuacją istniejącej już sytuacji (por.

Yagci i Sargin p. Turcji, wyrok z 8 czerwca 1995 r., skargi nr 16419/90 i 16426/90, Seria A nr 319-A., s. 16 par. 40). Dlatego też należy mieć na względzie, iż co prawda wydarzenia historyczne które miały miejsce w latach 1939 – 1940 nie znajdą się w jurysdykcji czasowej Trybunału, jednakże przedmiotem skargi są zdarzenia prawne z okresu po wejściu w życie Konwencji wobec Federacji Rosyjskiej.

67. W swoim orzecznictwie Trybunał przyznał, że uznanie jego jurysdykcji czasowej, kiedy fakty, do których odnosi się sprawa wydarzyły się częściowo przed, a częściowo po wejściu w życie Konwencji dla danego państwa, jest często utrudnione. Trybunał

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

229

zauważał jednak, że stosując zasadę nieretroaktywności, gotów jest uwzględniać do pewnego stopnia fakty, które nastąpiły przed dniem wejścia w życie Konwencji dla danego państw, mając na uwadze ich związek z następnymi wydarzeniami, które stanowiły właśnie podstawę skargi (por. Šilih p. Słowenii, wyrok z 9 kwietnia 2009 r.

[WI], skarga nr 71463/01, § 141). Trybunał stosował taką ocenę m.in w odniesieniu do skarg w oparciu o art. 6 dotyczących rzetelności postępowań karnych, które rozpoczęły się przed wejściem w życie Konwencji i trwały po tej dacie. W takich sytuacjach Trybunał oceniał rzetelność postępowania jako całości.

68. W sprawie Blečić p. Chorwacji Trybunał potwierdził, że „w celu ustalenia jurysdykcji

czasowej Trybunału (…) konieczne jest zidentyfikowanie, w każdej poszczególnej sprawie, dokładnej daty zarzucanej ingerencji. Dokonując tego Trybunał musi wziąć pod uwagę zarówno fakty, na które skarży się skarżący, jak i zakres prawa gwarantowanego Konwencją, którego naruszenie jest zarzucane.” (por. Blečić p. Chorwacji, wyrok z 8 marca 2006 r.

[WI], skarga nr 59532/00, §§ 72 i 82). Dlatego też w każdym przypadku ustalenie, czy właściwe jest rozpatrywanie aspektów proceduralnych artykułu będącego podstawą skargi w braku kompetencji do zajmowania się materialnym aspektem prawa, zależy od faktów szczególnej sprawy i zakresu prawa, które jest rozpatrywane (por. Varnava i inni p. Turcji, op.cit., § 130). Trybunał dopuszcza więc sytuacje, w których możliwe jest badanie aspektów proceduralnych prawa przy równoczesnym braku jego kompetencji czasowej do badania aspektów materialnych.

69. W najnowszych orzeczeniach Trybunału odnoszących się do kwestii jurysdykcji czasowej, Trybunał potwierdził, że kryteria ustalone w sprawie Blečić, mają charakter generalny, dlatego też przy stosowaniu tych kryteriów należy brać pod uwagę wyjątkowy charakter niektórych praw, szczególnie praw gwarantowanych w art. 2 i 3 Konwencji. Trybunał potwierdził, że obydwa te artykuły należą do podstawowych przepisów Konwencji i odzwierciedlają podstawowe wartości demokratycznych społeczeństw tworzących Radę Europy (por. Šilih p. Słowenii, op.cit., § 147).

70. Trybunał stwierdzał istnienie obowiązku proceduralnego na podstawie Konwencji

w różnych sytuacjach, kiedy uznawał to za konieczne dla zapewnienia, by prawa gwarantowane na podstawie Konwencji nie były teoretyczne i iluzoryczne, ale praktyczne i skuteczne (por. Varnava i inni p. Turcji, op.cit., § 161). Zgodnie z orzecznictwem Trybunału istnienie obowiązku proceduralnego nie jest zależne od tego, czy państwo zostanie ostatecznie uznane za odpowiedzialne za śmierć jednostki. Gdy sformułowany jest zarzut zabójstwa, sam fakt, że władze poinformowane są o tym, że doszło do śmierci, ustanawia obowiązek na podstawie artykułu 2 przeprowadzenia skutecznego oficjalnego śledztwa.

Należy także pamiętać o tym, że Trybunał zwykle rozpatrywał kwestię obowiązków proceduralnych wynikających na podstawie art. 2 oddzielnie od kwestii materialnej art. 2 (por. Šilih p. Słowenii, op.cit., § 156 i 158).

71. Artykuł 2 Konwencji nakłada na państwa szczególny obowiązek stworzenia skutecznego

systemu krajowego dla ustalenia przyczyn śmierci jednostki, w szczególności, jeżeli śmierć miała związek z działaniami funkcjonariuszy państwowych (por. McCann i inni p.

Wlk. Brytanii, wyrok z 27 września 1995 r., skarga nr 18984/91, s. 49, §§ 161-63; Kaya p. Turcji, wyrok z 19 lutego 1998 r., skarga nr 158/1996/777/978, Reports 1998‑I, p. 329,

230

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka § 105 oraz Çakici p. Turcji, wyrok z 8 lipca 1999 r. [WI], nr 23657/94, ECHR 1999‑IV, § 86). Dodatkowo Trybunał podkreśla w swoim orzecznictwie, że jeżeli w sytuację, która doprowadziła do śmierci zaangażowani byli funkcjonariusze państwowi bądź organy państwa, Konwencja nakłada na państwo obowiązek zapewnienia, że będą oni ponosili odpowiedzialność za przypadki śmierci, do których doszło w związku z ich działalnością (por. mutatis mutandis, İlhan p. Turcji, wyrok z 27 czerwca 2000 r. [WI], skarga nr 22277/93, ECHR 2000‑VII, § 63).

72. Jak wynika z orzecznictwa Trybunału, traktuje on obowiązek przeprowadzenia efektywnego śledztwa jako obowiązek mający charakter i zakres samodzielny i nie ogranicza go jedynie do przypadków, w których państwo może ponosić, pośrednio lub bezpośrednio odpowiedzialność za śmierć jednostek, czyli, w których państwo odpowiada za naruszenie prawa w aspekcie materialnym (por. Balasoiu p. Rumunii, dec. z 2 września 2003, skarga nr 37424/97, Šilih p. Słowenii, op.cit., § 159).

73. Naruszenie proceduralnego obowiązku przeprowadzenia skutecznego śledztwa zgodnie

z art. 2 może dawać asumpt do oddzielnej i niezależnej „ingerencji” w rozumieniu rozważań zawartych w wyroku Blečić (por. Blečić p. Chorwacji, op. cit., § 88). W tym znaczeniu obowiązek proceduralny można traktować jako zupełnie odrębne zobowiązanie na gruncie art. 2 wiążące państwa nawet w sytuacji, jeżeli śmierć miała miejsce przed wejściem w życie Konwencji (por. Šilih p. Słowenii, op.cit., § 159). Stwierdzenie istnienia tego odrębnego obowiązku uzależnione jest jednak od zaistnienia pewnych przesłanek, przede wszystkim tego, że w zakres jurysdykcji Trybunału wchodzą jedynie te akty czy zaniechania, które miały miejsce po wejściu w życie Konwencji dla danego państwa oraz że zasadnicza część działań proceduralnych, które musza być przeprowadzone, podjęta była po tej dacie (por. Šilih p. Słowenii, op.cit., § 161-163).

74. W takich sytuacjach Trybunał uznaje, iż ma kompetencję ratione temporis do oceny aspektu proceduralnego artykułu 2, mimo iż kompetencji takiej nie ma w stosunku do aspektu materialnego tego artykułu.

75. Zastosowanie powyższych zasad do niniejszej sprawy powinno zdaniem Rządu prowadzić

do wniosku, iż w związku z faktem, że śmierć krewnych skarżących była bez jakichkolwiek wątpliwości wynikiem działań funkcjonariuszy państwowych, obowiązek przeprowadzenia skutecznego śledztwa w omawianym przypadku miał charakter samodzielny, nie związany z pierwotną ingerencją w prawa krewnych skarżących w postaci pozbawienia ich życia.

O konieczności samodzielnej oceny tego postępowania, w oderwaniu od oceny aspektu materialnego art. 2 w niniejszej sprawie, który ze względu na brak kompetencji ratione temporis Trybunału nie może podlegać jego kognicji, świadczy też fakt, iż postępowanie zostało wszczęte proprio motu, po upływie wielu lat od wydarzeń z 1940 r. i jak przyznają to same władze rosyjskie jego zasadniczym celem było dokładne ustalenie okoliczności faktycznych tragicznych wydarzeń. Zgodnie ze stanowiskiem przedstawianym przez władze rosyjskie, postępowanie zostało umorzone z powodu śmierci osób, które uczestniczyły w tych wydarzeniach. Mając na uwadze powyższe okoliczności, obowiązek proceduralny wynikający z art. 2 Konwencji należy traktować w niniejszej sprawie jako mający charakter i zakres samodzielny i dlatego też od oceny rzetelności tego postępowania nie powinien Trybunału wstrzymywać brak jurysdykcji czasowej do oceny aspektu materialnego art. 2

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

231

Konwencji. W związku z powyższym, ta część śledztwa, która toczyła się po wejściu w życie Konwencji dla Rosji, to jest po 5 maja 1998 r., jak też rozpoczęte później postępowania, związane z tym śledztwem, a dotyczące innych wątków, w szczególności rehabilitacji zmarłych zgodnie z obowiązującym prawem rosyjskim, jak też dostępu do akt, objęta będzie jurysdykcją temporalną Trybunału.

76. Trybunał zwrócił się do stron postępowania o przedstawienie stanowiska w zakresie tego, czy postępowanie w sprawie śmierci krewnych skarżących prowadzone przez władze rosyjskie było właściwe i skuteczne, jak wymaga tego artykuł 2 Konwencji. W tym względzie Rząd Polski pragnie przedstawić następujące stanowisko.

77. Obowiązek ochrony życia zgodnie z artykułem 2 Konwencji, rozpatrywany łącznie

z generalnym obowiązkiem państw zapewnienia każdemu znajdującemu się w ich jurysdykcji praw i wolności zagwarantowanych Konwencją, wymaga m.in. w przypadkach, w których doszło do utraty życia w wyniku użycia siły zbrojnej, skutecznego i oficjalnego śledztwa (por. min. Kaya p. Turcji, wyrok z 19 lutego 1998 r., op.cit., § 105, Bazorkina p. Rosji, wyrok z 27 lipca 2006 r., skarga nr 69481/01, §§ 117-119). Aby śledztwo dotyczące niezgodnego z prawem pozbawienia życia przez funkcjonariuszy państwa mogło być ocenione jako skuteczne, spełniony musi być szereg warunków. Między innymi osoby odpowiedzialne za śledztwo i je prowadzące muszą być niezależne od osób zaangażowanych w wydarzenia, które doprowadziły do śmierci (por. m.in., Güleç p. Turcji, wyrok z 27 lipca 1998 r., skarga nr 21593/93, Reports 1998-IV, §§ 81-82; Öğur p. Tucji, wyrok z 20 maja 1999 r. [WI], skarga nr 21954/93, §§ 91-92, ECHR 1999-III). Śledztwo musi być także skuteczne w tym znaczeniu, iż w jego ramach można doprowadzić do ustalenia, czy siła użyta została w sposób usprawiedliwiony w danych okolicznościach, w ramach postępowania musi być także możliwe zidentyfikowanie oraz ukaranie osób odpowiedzialnych (por. Ögur p. Turcji, op.cit., § 88). Państwa zobligowane są do zapewnienia, by postępowania, w których badane są okoliczności śmierci prowadzone były rzetelnie, z Konwencji nie wynika jednakże obowiązek zidentyfikowania winnych w każdym przypadku. Nie chodzi o obowiązek rezultatu, ale zastosowanych środków.

Wszelkie braki śledztwa ograniczające możliwość ustalenia przyczyn śmierci lub osób odpowiedzialnych rodzą ryzyko uznania, że śledztwo nie odpowiadało wymogom art. 2 Konwencji (por. Nachova i inni p. Bułgarii, wyrok z 26 lutego 2004 r., skarga nr 43577/98 i 43579/98, § 117).

78. Do oceny w świetle artykułu 2 Konwencji charakteru obowiązku ciążącego na pozwanym

Rządzie zastosowanie znajdzie orzecznictwo Trybunału odnoszące się do obowiązków wynikających dla państwa w sytuacji zaginięć (patrz Varnava i inni p.Turcji, op.cit., §§ 181194). Zgodnie z tym orzecznictwem, jeżeli wiedza o wydarzeniach dotyczących pewnych osób znajduje się całkowicie lub w znacznej części w posiadaniu władz, jak to ma miejsce w sytuacji osób znajdujących się w miejscach odosobnienia, ciężar dowodu w zakresie przedstawienia wystarczających i satysfakcjonujących wyjaśnień na temat losu tych osób, będzie leżał po stronie władz. Stosując te zasady do okoliczności niniejszej sprawy, należy stwierdzić, że władze rosyjskie nie kwestionowały w trakcie postępowań krajowych faktu, że krewni skarżących znaleźli się we władzy ZSRR na przełomie 1939 i 1940 r. Jednakże w trakcie postępowań krajowych skarżącym przedstawiono sprzeczne informacje, co do losu

232

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka krewnych. W trakcie postępowania przed Trybunałem władze rosyjskie nie przedstawiły natomiast żadnych informacji co do losu krewnych skarżących, które podważałyby twierdzenie skarżących, że osoby wzięte do niewoli znajdowały się w jurysdykcji radzieckiej.

Dlatego też artykuł 2 nakłada na odpowiedzialny rząd ciągły obowiązek dostarczenia informacji co do losu zaginionych osób (por. Varnava i inni p. Turcji, op.cit., § 186).

79. W związku z faktem, iż Rząd Polski nie miał nigdy wglądu do całości akt śledztwa, nie

ma on możliwości ustosunkowania się do zarzutu nierzetelności postępowania nr 159 prowadzonego przez Główną Prokuraturę Wojskową FR w oparciu o akta prokuratorskie tego postępowania. Jednakże znane Rządowi okoliczności oraz fakty wydają się wskazywać, iż w niniejszej sprawie wymóg rzetelności postępowania nie został spełniony. Wskazują na to m.in. następujące okoliczności.

80. Po pierwsze w toku postępowania skarżący otrzymali całkowicie sprzeczne informacje co

do losu ich bliskich. W piśmie z dnia 21 kwietnia 1998 r. Główna Prokuratura Wojskowa FR poinformowała drugą skarżącą, iż nazwisko jej męża W. Wołka „rzeczywiście znajduje się na liście więźniów obozu NKWD ZSRR w Kozielsku i razem z innymi był on rozstrzelany wiosną 1940 r.…”. Także w piśmie z dnia 23 listopada 2005 r.

Główna Prokuratura Wojskowa FR stwierdziła, że „Wincent Wacławowicz Wołk, ur. w 1909 r., był przetrzymywany w obozie w Kozielsku i w 1940 r. został rozstrzelany przez organy NKWD ZSRR”. We wskazanych pismach prokuratura potwierdziła fakt osadzenia krewnego pierwszej i drugiej skarżącej w obozie NKWD w Kozielsku oraz fakt jego rozstrzelania wiosną 1940 r. przez NKWD. Z kolei w wyrokach Moskiewskiego Okręgowego Sądu Wojskowego z dnia 14 października 2008 r. oraz Izby Wojskowej Sądu Najwyższego z dnia 29 stycznia 2009 r., oddalających zażalenie skarżących na postanowienie z dnia 21 września 2004 r. o umorzeniu śledztwa katyńskiego nr 159, znajduje się stwierdzenie, iż nazwisko W. Wołka oraz nazwiska pozostałych krewnych skarżących znajdują się na listach obozów NKWD w Kozielsku, Ostaszkowie i Starobielsku, niemniej oba sądy wskazały, że „informacji o dalszym losie wskazanych osób nie udało się ustalić w trakcie ‘Katyńskiego’ śledztwa karnego”. Porównując treść odpowiedzi Głównej Prokuratury Wojskowej z 21 kwietnia 1998 r. i 23 listopada 2005 r. z orzeczeniami Moskiewskiego Okręgowego Sądu Wojskowego i Izby Wojskowej Sądu Najwyższego, odpowiednio z 14 października 2008 r. i 29 stycznia 2009 r., należy stwierdzić, że zawierają one sprzeczne informacje dotyczące faktów mających podstawowe znaczenie zarówno dla samych skarżących, jak i w konsekwencji dla niniejszej sprawy. Biorąc pod uwagę, że zarówno obydwie odpowiedzi Głównej Prokuratury Wojskowej, jak i orzeczenia sądów musiały opierać się na zgromadzonym w ramach śledztwa materiale dowodowym, należy stwierdzić, że jedna z tych informacji jest nieprawdziwa.

81. Celem złożenia przez pierwszą skarżącą w dniu 25 października 2005 r. pisma do prokuratury

było udzielenie jej informacji na temat dalszych losów śledztwa katyńskiego, doręczenie kopii postanowienia o jego umorzeniu, a w przypadku potwierdzenia informacji o utajnieniu tego postanowienia, o ponowne rozpatrzenie decyzji w tej sprawie. Skarżąca jako krewna osoby przetrzymywanej w obozie w Kozielsku, była zainteresowana przebiegiem śledztwa, ponieważ prowadzone śledztwo stanowiło dla niej jedyną możliwość dowiedzenia się o los zaginionego krewnego. Fakt, że w toku prowadzonego przez władze rosyjskie postępowania

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

233

skarżącej przesłano pisma zawierające całkowicie sprzeczne informacje co do wskazanych powyżej faktów, których ustalenia się domagała, wyraźnie wskazuje na braki prowadzonego postępowania i jego nierzetelność.

82. Po drugie, o braku rzetelności postępowania prokuratury rosyjskiej w zakresie ustalenia losu osób zaginionych może też świadczyć fakt niewykorzystania przez władze rosyjskie w toku ustalania okoliczności wydarzeń z 1940 r. dokumentów zgromadzonych samodzielnie przez prokuraturę rosyjską oraz uzyskanych w ramach pomocy prawnej świadczonej przez organy polskie na wniosek Głównej Prokuratury Wojskowej ZSRR z 25 grudnia 1990 r. (por. Załączniki 1 i 2), ale też sposób dokonanej oceny tych dokumentów.

83. Przede wszystkim poważne zastrzeżenia budzą kategoryczne stwierdzenia władz rosyjskich

o niemożliwości oficjalnego ustalenia faktu śmierci krewnych skarżących. Zgodnie z informacjami Rządu Polskiego rosyjskie władze prokuratorskie prowadząc postępowanie dysponowały wieloma informacjami o ostatnich miesiącach życia krewnych skarżących, a przede wszystkim dokumentami potwierdzającymi fakt wydania wyroku śmierci oraz jego ostatecznego wykonania na osobach polskiego pochodzenia internowanych m.in. w obozach w Starobielsku, Kozielsku i Ostaszkowie (por. paragraf 57 oraz Załączniki nr 1 i 2). Jeżeli organy rosyjskie wyraziłyby taką wolę, mogłyby ponadto uczestniczyć w pracach archeologiczno-ekshumacyjnych prowadzonych przez polskie organy w latach 1994-1996 w Katyniu, Charkowie i Miednoje lub ewentualnie zwrócić się o udostępnienie ich wyników.

Dodatkowo, w ramach czynności zmierzających do zebrania materiału dowodowego, organy rosyjskie miały możliwość wystąpienia o przesłuchanie wszystkich tych krewnych ofiar Zbrodni Katyńskiej, którzy nie zostali jak dotychczas przesłuchani, a wśród nich o przesłuchanie drugiej skarżącej, która w 1997 r. wystąpiła do GPW o rehabilitację jej męża. W konsekwencji umorzenia przez władze rosyjskie śledztwa nr 159, władze polskie wszczęły w roku 2004 r. własne śledztwo mające na celu ustalenie całokształtu okoliczności z 1940 r. (patrz, paragraf 48). W toku tego śledztwa władzom polskim udało się potwierdzić szereg informacji na temat losu jeńców obozu w Starobielsku, Kozielsku i Ostaszkowie a tym samym zgromadzić dowody potwierdzające, że wśród rozstrzelanych jeńców byli wszyscy krewni skarżących (patrz odpowiedź na pytanie 3 Trybunału).

84. W konsekwencji należy stwierdzić, że w oparciu o posiadany materiał dowodowy śledztwa nr 159 prokuratura rosyjska mogła z całkowitą pewnością ustalić fakt rozstrzelania w 1940 r. co najmniej czterech spośród krewnych skarżących – Wincentego Wołka, Stanisława Rodowicza, Stanisława Mieleckiego i Ryszarda Żołędziowskiego. Jednocześnie, FR mogła z łatwością wejść w posiadanie dowodów, chociażby poprzez udział w pracach ekshumacyjnych mających miejsce w Katyniu, Charkowie i Miednoje w latach 1994-1996 lub poprzez skierowanie wniosku do władz RP o udostępnienie ich wyników, które uprawdopodobniłyby w stopniu wystarczającym śmierć pozostałych spośród krewnych skarżących.

85. Na podstawie uchwały Biura Politycznego Komitetu Centralnego Partii Komunistycznej

ZSRR z dnia 5 marca 1940 r. o zastosowaniu najwyższego wymiaru kary w postaci rozstrzelania 25 700 polskich oficerów, policjantów i urzędników, jak również notatki Przewodniczącego KGB A. Szelepina dla N. Chruszczowa z dnia 3 marca 1959 r. określającej liczbę rozstrzelanych w 1940 r. przez NKWD na 21 857 osób, w tym 4 421 z obozu NKWD

234

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka w Kozielsku, 6 311 z obozu NKWD w Ostaszkowie i 3 820 z obozu NKWD w Starobielsku, wyników prac ekshumacyjnych z 1943 r. w Katyniu oraz z pierwszej połowy lat 90-tych XX w. w Katyniu, Charkowie i Miednoje, jak również zeznań naocznych świadków Zbrodni Katyńskiej (np. Mitrofana Syromiatnikowa, byłego funkcjonariusza NKWD obwodu charkowskiego) można bezspornie ustalić, iż w 1940 r. doszło do wykonania wyroku śmierci w stosunku do co najmniej 21 857 polskich oficerów, policjantów i urzędników, a wśród nich – krewnych skarżących.

86. Dlatego też wątpliwości budzi sposób wnioskowania oraz ocena materiału dowodowego, na podstawie których w toku śledztwa nr 159 ustalono, że w 1940 r. organy NKWD rozstrzelały zaledwie 1803 osoby polskiego pochodzenia. Liczbę 1803 osób przytoczył Moskiewski Okręgowy Wojskowy Sąd, jak również Izba Wojskowa Sądu Najwyższego FR, w orzeczeniach wydanych w toku postępowań krajowych wszczętych przez krewnych skarżących.

87. Podobnie można mieć wątpliwości co do sposób wnioskowania oraz oceny materiału

dowodowego, który pozwolił organom rosyjskim na prezentowanie stanowiska, że w toku rosyjskiego śledztwa udało się zidentyfikować szczątki zaledwie 22 osób. Rząd Polski pragnie podkreślić, iż prace ekshumacyjne prowadzone na początku lat 90-tych XX w., w trakcie których dokonano identyfikacji zaledwie 22 osób, miały charakter procesowy i prowadzone były w ramach śledztwa Głównej Prokuratury Wojskowej ZSRR o sygn.

159 wspólnie przez rosyjskich i polskich prokuratorów. Prace ekshumacyjne w Charkowie prowadzone były w dniach 25 lipca – 9 sierpnia 1991 r. Celem ekshumacji (co wynika z protokołu ekshumacyjnego) było zweryfikowanie zgromadzonych w rosyjskim śledztwie dowodów i uściślenie zeznań świadków odnośnie rozstrzelania w kwietniu – maju 1940 r. przez charkowski Zarząd NKWD polskich oficerów, znajdujących się do chwili wywiezienia ich do Charkowa w obozie dla jeńców wojennych w Starobielsku. Prace ekshumacyjne w Charkowie miały więc za zadanie sprawdzenie, zakładanej na podstawie informacji zebranych w śledztwie hipotezy, iż IV kwartał strefy leśno-parkowej Charkowa jest miejscem pochówku zamordowanych Polaków, jeńców Starobielska. Limitowanie czasu przeznaczonego na powyższe prace do dwóch tygodni, uniemożliwiło podjęcie w pełni metodycznych działań i przeprowadzenie pełnych ekshumacji. Także prace ekshumacyjne prowadzone w dniach 15-29 sierpnia 1991 r. w Miednoje miały charakter ściśle procesowy, a ich celem było sprawdzenie hipotezy, iż Miednoje jest miejscem pogrzebania zamordowanych Polaków, jeńców Ostaszkowa. Z kolei w dniach 20-21 listopada 1991 r. w Katyniu przeprowadzono prace sondażowe w celu dalszego potwierdzenia spoczywania w Lesie Katyńskim szczątków oficerów polskich z obozu kozielskiego ekshumowanych w 1943 r. W toku prac sondażowych w Katyniu w 1991 r. nie prowadzono żadnych rozpoznań identyfikacyjnych. Należy podkreślić, że władze rosyjskie świadome są faktu, iż ekshumacje przeprowadzone na początku lat 90-tych nie miały całościowego charakteru, co przedstawiciel FR potwierdził też w stanowisku stożonym do Trybunału („performer partial ekshumations …”) – patrz paragraf 25 Obserwacji przedłożonych przez Federację Rosyjską.

88. Z przedstawionych powyżej okoliczności wynika, że wszystkie prace ekshumacyjne

prowadzone na początku lat 90-tych XX w. miały charakter ściśle procesowy, ich celem było jedynie zweryfikowanie zgromadzonych już dowodów na potwierdzenie tezy, że

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

235

w Katyniu, Charkowie i Miednoje spoczywają szczątki polskich oficerów rozstrzelanych w 1940 r. Skoro zatem prace miały charakter procesowy, a ich celem nie była pełna ekshumacja wszystkich znajdujących się tam szczątków ludzkich należących do polskich obywateli wraz z ich pełną identyfikacją, tym większego znaczenia dla organów rosyjskich powinna nabrać ocena pozostałych dowodów w sprawie, które w sposób obiektywny i bezsporny potwierdzają liczbę rozstrzelanych nie na 1803, lecz na co najmniej 21 857 osób.

Analogicznie, tym większego znaczenia dla organów rosyjskich powinna nabrać ocena pozostałych dowodów w sprawie, które w sposób obiektywny i bezsporny potwierdzają liczbę zidentyfikowanych ofiar Zbrodni Katyńskiej na znacznie większą niż 22 osoby. W toku śledztwa nr 159 w archiwach rosyjskich ujawniono podstawowe dla Zbrodni Katyńskiej dokumenty źródłowe w postaci tzw. list wywozowych NKWD z obozów w Kozielsku i Ostaszkowie, wykazu akt ewidencyjnych jeńców wywiezionych z obozu w Starobielsku oraz tzw. Teczki nr 1 zawierającego m.in. decyzję Biura Politycznego KC WKP(b) z 5 marca 1940 r. o eksterminacji Polaków (por. paragraf 35). Dokumenty te wraz z wykazami ofiar zidentyfikowanych w 1943 r. w Katyniu, stały się podstawą do ustaleń danych osobowych ofiar Zbrodni Katyńskiej. Przyjmuje się, że jeńcy Kozielska, Ostaszkowa i Starobielska, których personalia figurują na poszczególnych listach dyspozycyjnych, o ile nie znaleźli się w grupie jeńców, którzy zmarli w obozie lub zostali z niego zwolnieni bądź nie należeli do grupy 395 ocalałych łącznie jeńców obozów w Kozielsku, Starobielsku i Ostaszkowie, zostali zamordowani w kwietniu – maju 1940 r. przez funkcjonariuszy NKWD ZSRR działających w wykonaniu uchwały Biura Politycznego KC WPK(b) z 5 marca 1940 r. o eksterminacji Polaków. Domniemanie to znajduje m.in. potwierdzenie w rezultatach ekshumacji w Katyniu w 1943 r. oraz w wynikach częściowych prac ekshumacyjnych przeprowadzonych wspólnie przez przedstawicieli polskiej i rosyjskiej prokuratury w 1991 r.

89. Trybunał wielokrotnie podkreślał w swoim orzecznictwie, iż późniejsze zaginięcie osoby

znajdującej się w rękach państwa nakazuje w pewnych okolicznościach domniemywać, iż straciła ona życie. Rząd Polski pragnie podkreślić w tym miejscu, iż wszyscy krewni skarżących przed ich zaginięciem znajdowali się w 1940 r. w radzieckiej niewoli. W stosunku do każdego jeńca wojennego ZSRR zobowiązany był do zachowania szczególnego standardu dbałości, opieki i kontroli. Jeżeli władze nie przedstawią wyjaśnień, co się z taką osobą stało, ponoszą odpowiedzialność za jej śmierć. Niezmiernie ważne są w tym kontekście zwłaszcza dowody pośrednie, pozwalające domniemywać zgodnie z wymaganym standardem dowodowym, że zaginiony zmarł pozostając we władzy państwa (por. Timurtas p. Turcji, wyrok z 13 czerwca 2000 r., skarga nr 23531/94, § 82). Im więcej czasu upływa bez żadnych wiadomości o danej osobie prawdopodobieństwo jej śmierci jest tym większe (por. Tanis i inni p. Turcji, wyrok z 2 sierpnia 2005 r., skarga nr 65899/01, § 200). W tym miejscu należy podkreślić, iż korespondencja prowadzona między rodzinami skarżonych a ich krewnymi osadzonymi w obozach NKWD ustała na przełomie kwietnia i maja 1940 r. Od tego momentu rodziny utraciły jakikolwiek kontakt z osadzonymi krewnymi, mimo iż w uprzednio prowadzonej korespondencji wykazywali oni wolę kontynuowania korespondencji z rodzinami w okupowanej Polsce.

90. Dlatego też mając na uwadze powyższe orzecznictwo Trybunału, wskazane dokumenty

źródłowe, przytoczone fakty dotyczące miejsc przebywania skarżących oraz dokumenty

236

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka i przedmioty wydobyte w trakcie prac ekshumacyjnych zarówno w 1943 r. w Katyniu, jak i w latach 90-tych XX w. w Katyniu, Charkowie i Miednoje, Rząd wyraża opinię, że fakt śmierci co najmniej czterech polskich obywateli – Wincentego Wołka, Stanisława Rodowicza, Stanisława Mieleckiego i Ryszarda Żołędziowskiego – w wyniku ich rozstrzelania przez organy NKWD w 1940 r. nie budzi żadnych wątpliwości i jako taki nie powinien być w żaden sposób podważany. Również w przypadku pozostałych polskich obywateli – Stanisława Uziembło, Szymona Tomaszewskiego, Aleksandra Wielebnowskiego, Stefana Ercharda, Stanisława Augusta Malewicza i Michała Adamczyka, których krewni są również skarżącymi w niniejszej sprawie, materiały dowodowe zgromadzone w toku rosyjskiego śledztwa przez rosyjskie organy w wystarczającym stopniu uprawdopodabniają ich śmierć.

91. W aspekcie nieuwzględnienia części dokumentów bądź ich oceny wątpliwości budzić

może też stanowisko przyjęte przez prokuraturę rosyjską oraz rosyjskie sądy, iż wszystkie dokumenty spraw karnych przeciwko krewnym skarżących zostały zniszczone i nie można ustalić jaka była podstawa pociągnięcia ich do odpowiedzialności karnej. Z tego stwierdzenia wyciągnięto wniosek, iż bez podstawy odpowiedzialności karnej brak jest możliwości prawnej rehabilitacji krewnych skarżących. Jednocześnie w toku sądowej kontroli rosyjskiego śledztwa katyńskiego prokuratura wojskowa i sądy posługiwały się listami jeńców obozu w Kozielsku i Ostaszkowie, na których przy nazwiskach osadzonych tam krewnych skarżących widnieje indywidualnie przypisany numer „sprawy” (дeло) (patrz Załącznik 1). Z przekazanych za pośrednictwem Trybunału materiałów wynika, że w toku sądowej kontroli śledztwa katyńskiego nr 159, GPW i rosyjskie sądy nie wyjaśniły czego dotyczą materiały określone jako „sprawy”, a ponadto czy były one w 1940 r. przekazywane tzw. „trojkom” i czy były one podstawą indywidualnego pociągnięcia do odpowiedzialności karnej tj. podjęcia przez trojkę indywidualnej decyzji o losie ofiar.

Nie wyjaśniono również, czy dokumenty oznaczone jako „sprawy” zostały zniszczone, czy jakiekolwiek z tych dokumentów się zachowały, a jeśli się zachowały, czy zostały one włączone do materiałów śledztwa nr 159. Brak wyjaśnień w tym zakresie ze strony rosyjskich organów, każe poddać w wątpliwość skuteczność rosyjskiego śledztwa, jak również sądowej kontroli tego śledztwa.

92. Dodatkowo należy podkreślić, że Główna Prokuratura Wojskowa oraz rosyjskie sądy

uzależniły prawną rehabilitację krewnych skarżących od ustalenia podstawy prawnej pociągnięcia ich do odpowiedzialności karnej. Organy rosyjskie nie tylko nie wyjaśniły czego dotyczą „sprawy” wskazane przy nazwiskach pomordowanych krewnych skarżących, ale przede wszystkim nie odniosły się do treści kluczowej w przedmiotowej sprawie decyzji Biura Politycznego Komitetu Centralnego Partii Komunistycznej ZSRR z 5 marca 1940 r.

W decyzji tej wyraźnie mowa jest o niepociąganiu do odpowiedzialności karnej, lecz o zastosowaniu „trybu szczególnego”. Również i tu należy wskazać, że rosyjskie organy z GPW na czele dopuściły się zaniechania, a w konsekwencji nieefektywności.

93. Po trzecie, o wadliwości postępowania prokuratury może też świadczyć fakt zaniechania

po 1995 r. czynności procesowych w zakresie gromadzenia materiału dowodowego odnoszącego się do krewnych skarżących polegającego na samodzielnym pozyskiwaniu przez organy FR dowodów. Brak samodzielnego pozyskiwania dowodów w sprawie w latach 1995-2004, FR potwierdza w swoim stanowisku przedłożonym przed Trybunałem

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

237

(patrz, na przykład paragraf 31 Obserwacji FR przedłożonych Trybunałowi). Tymczasem warto podkreślić, iż w 1997 r., czyli na kilka lat przed zakończeniem rosyjskiego śledztwa katyńskiego, druga skarżąca, wdowa po Wincencie Wołku, skierowała za pośrednictwem polskich organów do organów FR wniosek o prawną rehabilitację jej męża. W 1998 r. prokuratura rosyjska udzieliła drugiej skarżącej odpowiedzi, uzależniając rehabilitację jej męża od zakończenia śledztwa nr 159. Jednocześnie prokuratura nie zarządziła przesłuchania wdowy. W ten sposób prokuratura utraciła możliwość zgromadzenia wszelkich dostępnych informacji na temat losu męża drugiej skarżącej.

94. Prokuratura prowadząca śledztwo nie zarządziła przesłuchania drugiej skarżącej i nie

zwróciła się do polskich organów o przesłuchanie drugiej skarżącej ze względu na jej miejsce zamieszkania w Polsce. Na tę okoliczność należy stwierdzić, że już po umorzeniu rosyjskiego śledztwa katyńskiego druga skarżąca w lutym 2005 r. została przesłuchana przez polskich prokuratorów w ramach polskiego śledztwa katyńskiego wszczętego w listopadzie 2004 r. Druga skarżąca oświadczyła, iż w sprawie Zbrodni Katyńskiej jest przesłuchiwana po raz pierwszy. Podobne oświadczenia w toku polskiego śledztwa złożyli inni skarżący stający w przedmiotowej sprawie.

95. W konsekwencji należy podkreślić, iż w latach 1995-2004 FR zaniechała samodzielnego

pozyskiwania dowodów pochodzących od zgłaszających się bezpośrednio do rosyjskich organów krewnych ofiar Zbrodni Katyńskiej. Brak samodzielnego pozyskiwaniu przez FR dowodów w latach 1995-2004 jest przejawem nieefektywności rosyjskiego śledztwa katyńskiego. Ten natomiast przejaw nieefektywności rosyjskiego śledztwa katyńskiego, po umorzeniu tego śledztwa, uniemożliwił skarżącym prawną rehabilitację krewnych.

96. Po czwarte, o braku spełnienia przesłanki rzetelności może świadczyć fakt niedopuszczenia

poszkodowanych, czyli skarżących do udziału w postępowaniu i odmawianie im statusu pokrzywdzonych na gruncie rosyjskiego prawa karnego (kwestia ta opisana jest szczegółowo w odpowiedzi na pytanie 5 Trybunału – patrz paragrafy 127-147).

Jak już wspomniano powyżej w 1998 r. druga skarżąca zwracała się do prokuratury prowadzącej śledztwo nr 159 z wnioskiem o rehabilitację jej męża. Skarżąca wykazała swoje zainteresowanie prowadzonym postępowaniem jako krewna ofiary, okoliczności śmierci której dotyczyło śledztwo nr 159. Skarżąca domagała się udzielenia jej informacji celem uzyskania rehabilitacji męża, a prowadząca postępowanie prokuratura wyjaśniła, iż ewentualna rehabilitacja będzie możliwa dopiero po zakończeniu postępowania karnego.

Pomimo faktu iż skarżąca domagając się udzielenia jej informacji o śledztwie usiłowała skorzystać jako krewna ofiary z uprawnień procesowych przysługujących jej zgodnie z art.

42 kodeksu postępowania karnego, prokuratura nie przyznała jej statusu pokrzywdzonej i w konsekwencji nie powiadomiła jej oficjalnie o umorzeniu 21 września 2004 r. śledztwa nr 159. W konsekwencji skarżąca w dniu 25 października 2005 r. przesłała do prokuratury pismo, w którym zwracała się o udzielenie jej informacji na temat dalszych losów śledztwa katyńskiego, doręczenie kopii postanowienia o jego umorzeniu, a w przypadku potwierdzenia informacji o utajnieniu tego postanowienia, o ponowne rozpatrzenie decyzji w tej sprawie. Prokuratura odpowiedziała na ten wniosek w liście z dnia 23 listopada 2005 r. Główna Prokuratura Wojskowa poinformowała pierwszą skarżącą, iż w treści postanowienia o zakończeniu śledztwa katyńskiego znajdują się informacje stanowiące

238

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka tajemnicę państwową, dlatego dokument ten nie podlega rozpowszechnieniu i nie może zostać przekazany stronie polskiej. Skarżącej, mimo spełnienia wszystkich przesłanek z art.

42 kpk, nie przyznano statusu pokrzywdzonej w postępowaniu karnym, a w konsekwencji odmówiono dostępu do akt zakończonego postępowania. Kolejne odwołania skarżącej od tej decyzji okazały się bezskuteczne.

97. Z przedstawionych powyżej faktów bezsprzecznie wynika, iż prokuratura nigdy nie

uznała statusu skarżących jako pokrzywdzonych w sprawie. Zostało to potwierdzone ostatecznie w orzeczeniu z 14 października 2008 r. wydanym przez Moskiewski Okręgowy Sąd Wojskowy. Odmowa nadania statusu ofiar uniemożliwiła skarżącym uczestnictwo w prowadzonym postępowaniu, w szczególności zapoznanie się z aktami śledztwa po zamknięciu postępowania przygotowawczego. W ten sposób władze rosyjskie uniemożliwiły skarżącym zapoznanie się ze zgromadzonym materiałem dowodowym, w którym jak wskazywały na to pisma wcześniej uzyskane przez skarżących od prokuratury (np. pismo z 1998 r.) znajdowały się dokumenty odnoszące się do losu krewnych skarżących. Skarżący nigdy nie mieli możliwości zweryfikowania stwierdzenia zawartego np. w orzeczeniu z dnia 14 października 2008 r. Moskiewskiego Okręgowego Sądu Wojskowego, który stwierdził, że „w toku śledztwa katyńskiego nie ustalono informacji na temat dalszych losów tych osób” – krewnych skarżących. Skarżący nie mieli możliwości zapoznania się całością materiałów śledztwa i faktycznego zweryfikowania, że prokuratura nie ustaliła informacji na temat dalszych losów tych osób. Brak dostępu do materiałów śledztwa oraz bezskuteczne zaskarżanie wydanych przez prokuraturę postanowień, miały negatywne konsekwencje dla dochodzenia przez skarżących w krajowym postępowaniu rehabilitacyjnym rehabilitacji ofiar (szerzej zob. odpowiedź na pytanie 6 Trybunału).

98. Rząd RP pragnie jednocześnie podkreślić, iż problem nieprzyznania statusu

pokrzywdzonych w toku rosyjskiego śledztwa katyńskiego nr 159 dotyczy nie tylko skarżących w przedmiotowej sprawie, ale co najmniej kilkuset innych osób, krewnych ofiar Zbrodni Katyńskiej, których zeznania przekazano FR w ramach świadczenia przez polskie organy pomocy prawnej w ramach rosyjskiego śledztwa katyńskiego. Rząd RP pragnie wskazać, dla przykładu, że w samym tylko dniu 11 kwietnia 1991 r. FR przekazane zostały protokoły zeznań 57 świadków będących członkami rodzin więźniów z obozu w Kozielsku, protokoły zeznań 34 świadków będących członkami rodzin więźniów z obozu w Starobielsku oraz protokoły zeznań 70 świadków będących członkami rodzin więźniów z obozu w Ostaszkowie.

99. Opisane powyżej postępowanie władz prokuratorskich powinno być ocenione w świetle

orzecznictwa Trybunału. Trybunał uznaje, że prowadzone przez władze państwowe postępowania, szczególnie te dotyczące wyjaśnienia okoliczności śmierci, muszą być poddane kontroli ze strony opinii publicznej. Wymagany poziom kontroli opinii publicznej może być różny w zależności od sprawy. Jednakże we wszystkich sprawach, krewni ofiar muszą być zaangażowani w procedurę w stopniu koniecznym dla zapewnienia ich uzasadnionych interesów. Krewnemu należy zapewnić możliwość aktywnego uczestnictwa w postępowaniu, składania wniosków dowodowych lub w inny sposób wpływania na bieg postępowania (por. Rajkowska p. Polsce, decyzja z 27 listopada 2007 r., skarga nr 37393/02).

Trybunał uznaje, że kontrola opinii publicznej nie była zapewniona m.in. w przypadku

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

239

braku poinformowania ojca ofiary o odmowie ścigania, czy nie zapewnienia rodzinie ofiary dostępu do dokumentów prokuratury oraz sądu (zob. m.in. Güleç p. Turcji, op.cit., § 82; Öğur p. Turcji, op. cit., § 92; Gül p. Turcji, wyrok z 14 grudnia 2000, skarga nr 22676/93, § 93).

W konkluzji należy stwierdzić, że niezapewnienie skarżącym uczestnictwa w toczącym się postępowaniu powinno być traktowane jako jeden z elementów potwierdzających naruszenie gwarantowanej w art. 2 Konwencji zasady rzetelności postępowania.

100. Oczywisty jest fakt, że upływ czasu, jaki miał miejsce od momentu wydarzeń do chwili,

w której przeprowadzane jest postępowanie może mieć wpływ na możliwość zebrania dowodów, czy wniesienie oskarżenia przeciwko wszystkim domniemanym sprawcom.

Jednakże nawet jeżeli istnieją przeszkody, które uniemożliwiają postęp w prowadzonym postępowaniu, właściwa reakcja władz ma kluczowe znaczenie dla podtrzymania zaufania publicznego w to, że władze w swoim postępowaniu kierują się zasadą rządów prawa oraz niedopuszczają swoim zachowaniem do stworzenia wrażenia, że miały udział bądź tolerują działania sprzeczne z prawem (patrz, Varnava i inni p. Turcji, op.cit., § 191).

101. Mając świadomość, iż z uwagi na upływ czasu, jaki nastąpił od momentu wydarzeń, które

stanowiły przedmiot śledztwa, celem skarżących nie było spowodowanie skazania osób winnych zarzucanych czynów, ale doprowadzenie do ustalenia bez wątpliwości losu ich krewnych oraz miejsca ich pochówku, przekazanie im w toku prowadzonego postępowania sprzecznych informacji dotyczących losu krewnych, nie zbadanie należyte dokumentów pozostających w dyspozycji prokuratury prowadzącej postępowanie, czy wreszcie niedopuszczenie skarżących do udziału w postępowaniu spowodowało, że skarżący nadal mają interes prawny w ustaleniu okoliczności śmierci krewnych. W tym kontekście Rząd Polski chciałby przywołać orzecznictwo Trybunału, zgodnie z którym państwa zobligowane są do zapewnienia, że postępowania, w których badane są okoliczności śmierci prowadzone są rzetelnie, natomiast dla państw nie wynika z Konwencji obowiązek zidentyfikowania winnych w każdym przypadku. Należy pamiętać, że wszelkie braki śledztwa ograniczające możliwość ustalenia przyczyn śmierci lub osób odpowiedzialnych rodzą ryzyko uznania, że śledztwo nie odpowiadało wymogom art. 2 Konwencji (por. Nachova i inni p. Bułgarii, op.cit., § 117).

102. W świetle powyższego Rząd pragnie stwierdzić, że po pierwsze Trybunał jest kompetentny

ratione temporis do rozpatrzenia proceduralnego aspektu artykułu 2 Konwencji w niniejszej sprawie, a po drugie postępowanie w sprawie śmierci krewnych skarżących prowadzone przez władze rosyjskie nie spełniło kryterium skuteczności i rzetelności, jak wymaga tego artykuł 2 Konwencji. W związku z tym doszło do naruszenia art. 2 Konwencji w aspekcie proceduralnym.

2.

Odpowiedź na pytanie 2

103. W związku z tym, że pytanie drugie dotyczy przedłożenia kopii decyzji Głównej Prokuratury Wojskowej Federacji Rosyjskiej o umorzeniu postępowania karnego w sprawie „Katynia” (nr 159) z 21 września 2004 r. Rząd Polski nie ma możliwości wykonania żądania Trybunału, gdyż dokument ten nie został mu nigdy udostępniony.

240 3.

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka Odpowiedź na pytanie 3

104. W pytaniu trzecim Trybunał zwrócił się do stron o przedłożenie dokumentów

dotyczących krewnych skarżących, takich jak właściwe wpisy na listach NKWD oraz protokoły z ekshumacji zwłok przeprowadzonych w 1943 r. w części dotyczącej identyfikacji trzech spośród krewnych skarżących. W Załączniku 1 Rząd Polski zamieszcza zestawienie informacji o losie wszystkich krewnych skarżących oparty o dokumenty znajdujące się w posiadaniu władz prowadzących tzw. śledztwo katyńskie, uzyskanych bezpośrednio przez prokuraturę rosyjską lub przez organy polskie w ramach pomocy prawnej świadczonej na rzecz FR. W Załączniku 2 Rząd Polski przedstawia również wykaz niektórych innych dokumentów przekazanych FR w wykonaniu rosyjskiego wniosku o pomoc prawną.

105. Ponieważ w toku przedmiotowej sprawy Federacja Rosyjska w swoim stanowisku przed

Trybunałem (patrz paragrafy 45-48 Obserwacji FR przedłożonych do Trybunału) wyraziła wątpliwości co do wiarygodności wyników prac ekshumacyjnych z 1943 r. dotyczących identyfikacji Wincentego Wołka, Stanisława Rodowicza i Stanisława Mieleckiego, Rząd RP pragnie przedstawić szereg dokumentów polskich świadczących o wiarygodności wyników prac ekshumacyjnych z 1943 r. Dokumentami polskimi są: 1) dokumenty wytworzone przez przedstawicieli polskiego społeczeństwa obecnych w Lesie Katyńskim w 1943 r. (Załącznik 3); 2) dokumenty wytworzone przez Polski Czerwony Krzyż (PCK), który przeprowadził nieomal całość prac ekshumacyjnych w Lesie Katyńskim w 1943 r. (Załącznik 4); 3) dokumenty wytworzone przez organy polskiego wymiaru sprawiedliwości po 1945 r.

106. Rząd Polski pragnie jednocześnie podkreślić, że treść wszystkich przywołanych poniżej

dokumentów polskiego pochodzenia jest znana FR, ponieważ zostały one przekazane FR przez polskie organy w latach 1991-1995 w wykonaniu rosyjskiego wniosku o pomoc prawną w ramach rosyjskiego śledztwa katyńskiego nr 159.

107. W dniu 11 kwietnia 1943 r. na miejsce Zbrodni Katyńskiej na żądanie Niemców przybyła

pierwsza kilkunastoosobowa grupa przedstawicieli polskiego społeczeństwa z Generalnego Gubernatorstwa. Na miejscu członkom polskiej delegacji pokazano wydobyte z masowych grobów zwłoki polskich oficerów. W skład polskiej delegacji wszedł m.in. dr Edmund Seyfried. Z pobytu w Lesie Katyńskim złożył on Państwu Podziemnemu i Radzie Głównej Opiekuńczej (polskiej organizacji humanitarnej) pisemne raporty.

108. W 1945 r. Prokuratura Specjalnego Sądu Karnego w Krakowie wszczęła śledztwo

przeciwko jednej z osób uczestniczących w pracach ekshumacyjnych w 1943 r. w Katyniu o rzekome działanie na szkodę Państwa Polskiego. W toku tego śledztwa jako świadek przesłuchany został wspomniany dr Edmund Seyfried. Do protokołu z przesłuchania przed prokuratorem załączył on wierną kopię raportu z pobytu w Lesie Katyńskim złożonego Państwu Podziemnemu w dniu 13 kwietnia 1943 r. (Załącznik 3).

109. W raporcie dr Edmund Seyfried opisał ekshumację i obdukcję wskazanego przez siebie jednego z polskich oficerów, przy którym znaleziono korespondencję z okupowanej Polski.

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

241

Ponadto wymienił nazwiska 31 innych ekshumowanych osób. Protokół z przesłuchania dr Edmunda Seyfrieda z 1945 r. wraz z załączonym do niego raportem z pobytu w Lesie Katyńskim przekazany został FR w piśmie z dnia 28 czerwca 1991 r. w wykonaniu rosyjskiego wniosku o pomoc prawną.

110. Kluczowym dokumentem wytworzonym przez PCK świadczącym o wiarygodności wyników prac ekshumacyjnych prowadzonych w Katyniu w 1943 r. jest raport końcowy PCK sporządzony w czerwcu 1943 r. przez Kazimierza Skarżyńskiego Sekretarza Generalnego PCK (Załącznik 4). W skład tego raportu weszło, między innymi, sprawozdanie z pobytu w Katyniu Kazimierza Skarżyńskiego (patrz: część I Raportu) oraz sprawozdanie z prac ekshumacyjnych Komisji Technicznej PCK (patrz: część II pkt. C Raportu).

111. W dniu 15 kwietnia 1943 r. na miejsce Zbrodni Katyńskiej przybył Sekretarz Generalny PCK

Kazimierz Skarżyński i inni przedstawiciele PCK. W dniu 18 kwietnia 1943 r. Kazimierz Skarżyński złożył władzom PCK sprawozdanie ze swojego pobytu w Lesie Katyńskim.

Na podstawie tego sprawozdania Zarząd Główny PCK zażądał od władz niemieckich pisemnego upoważnienia do rozpoczęcia przez PCK prac ekshumacyjnych w Lesie Katyńskim. W dniu 22 kwietnia 1943 r. przedstawiciel Generalnego Gubernatorstwa udzielił ustnie takiej zgody. Do tego momentu w Lesie Katyńskim ekshumowano około 300 ciał polskich oficerów, nazwiska około 150 z nich udało się zidentyfikować.

112. W końcu kwietnia 1943 r. obecni w Katyniu członkowie PCK zostali wzmocnieni zespołem

tzw. Komisji Technicznej PCK. W jej skład weszli inni członkowie PCK, lekarze, laboranci, sanitariusze, pracownicy fizyczni. Komisja Techniczna PCK przeprowadziła nieomal całość prac ekshumacyjnych w Katyniu. Sprawozdanie Komisji z jej prac w Lesie Katyńskim w 1943 r., jak wspomniano powyżej, stanowi część raportu końcowego PCK Kazimierza Skarżyńskiego.

113. Zgodnie ze sprawozdaniem Komisji Technicznej PCK w okresie od 15 kwietnia do

7 czerwca 1943 r. jej członkowie dokonali ekshumacji i obdukcji ogółem 4243 zwłok. Przy zwłokach zabezpieczono liczne dokumenty i przedmioty, które pozwoliły na indywidualną identyfikację przeważającej części ofiar.

114. Identyfikacja zwłok odbywała się na podstawie dokumentów i przedmiotów znalezionych

przy ekshumowanych zwłokach. W pierwszej kolejności kładziono nacisk na te dokumenty, które stwierdzały imię i nazwisko denata tj. znaki tożsamości, dowody osobiste, karty mobilizacyjne, legitymacje służbowe, inne. Podczas odczytywania dokumentów brało udział 3 Niemców i od 2 do 3 Polaków, członków Komisji Technicznej PCK.

115. Według Komisji sporządzanie list ekshumacyjnych odbywało się w następujący sposób: „Listy napisane na maszynie w języku niemieckim przez niemców, nie mogły być sprawdzane przez Komisję [Techniczną PCK] z brudnopisem, ponieważ nie miała już do nich wglądu. Ten system pracy trwał od Nr Nr 0421 – 0794 w obecności p. Ludwika Rojkiewicza. Przy stwierdzaniu tożsamości od Nr Nr 0795-03900 obecni byli członkowie Komisji pp. Cupryjak Stefan, Jaworowski Gracjan i Mikołajczyk Jan. Sposób wykonywania prac przez wyżej wymienionych był prawie, że identyczny, z tą jednak zmianą, że sporządzali oni już listy w języku polskim, które w miarę możności przesyłane

242

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka były do Zarządu Gł. PCK. Od Nr Nr 03900 do 04243 obecny był p. Wodzinowski Jerzy zachowując taką samą formę pracy. Zidentyfikowanie zwłok od Nr 1-112 i od 01 do 0420 przed przybyciem Komisji PCK dokonane było wyłącznie przez niemców.” [pisownia oryginalna – uzupełnienie dodane]

116. Na wykazie PCK osób ekshumowanych w 1943 r. oraz na niemieckiej liście ekshumacyjnej

opublikowanej w Amtliches Material zum Massenmord von KATYN nazwiska Wincentego Wołka, Stanisława Rodowicza i Stanisława Mieleckiego oznaczone zostały odpowiednio numerami 2564, 970 i 3425. Należy zwrócić uwagę, że ich numery zawierają się w przedziale 0795 – 03900, o którym mowa w cytowanym powyżej fragmencie sprawozdania Komisji Technicznej PCK. W konsekwencji cytowany fragment przesądza o autentyczności i wiarygodności identyfikacji w 1943 r. zwłok Wincentego Wołka, Stanisława Rodowicza i Stanisława Mieleckiego. O autentyczności i wiarygodności wyników zawartych w przedziale numerów 0795 – 03900 świadczy udział w tym procesie aż trzech członków Komisji oraz sporządzenie stosownego fragmentu listy również w języku polskim i przesłanie jej do Zarządu Głównego PCK.

117. Raport końcowy PCK Kazimierza Skarżyńskiego w formie broszury został przesłany FR

w dniu 11 kwietnia 1991 r. w wykonaniu rosyjskiego wniosku o pomoc prawną w ramach rosyjskiego śledztwa katyńskiego nr 159. Za tym samym pismem polskie organy przekazały FR kopię wykazu PCK ofiar ekshumowanych w Lesie Katyńskim w 1943 r., kopie kartotek osobowych PCK do tego wykazu, zawierających informację o przedmiotach na podstawie których dokonano identyfikacji.

118. W dalszej kolejności należy podkreślić, że o wiarygodność prac ekshumacyjnych z 1943 r.

świadczą dokumenty wytworzone przez organy polskiego wymiaru sprawiedliwości po 1945 r. Są to przede wszystkim wnioski i wydane na ich podstawie postanowienia polskich sądów w przedmiocie uznania za zmarłych polskich oficerów, policjantów i urzędników wziętych po 17 września 1939 r. do radzieckiej niewoli.

119. W Załączniku 1 Rząd Polski przytacza postanowienie o uznaniu za zmarłego Stanisława

Mieleckiego, ojca dwunastej skarżącej (tekst postanowienia w Załączniku 1.I.).

W postanowieniu Sądu Grodzkiego w Aleksandrowie Kujawskim z dnia 16 stycznia 1947 r. można przeczytać, że moment i miejsce zgonu ojca dwunastej skarżącej oznaczone zostało na 30 kwietnia 1943 r. w Kozich Górach k. Smoleńska. Oznacza to, że moment i miejsc zgonu ustalono najpóźniej na moment i miejsce prowadzonych przez PCK w 1943 r. w Lesie Katyńskim ekshumacji.

120. Z uzyskanych za pośrednictwem Trybunału dokumentów w przedmiotowej sprawie

wynika, że Główna Prokuratura Wojskowa i rosyjskie sądy nie odniosły się do przedmiotowego postanowienia Sądu Grodzkiego w Aleksandrowie Kujawskim z dnia 16 stycznia 1947 r. w przedmiocie uznania za zmarłego ojca dwunastej skarżącej, mimo że zostało ono FR przekazane w dniu 11 kwietnia 1991 r. w wykonaniu rosyjskiego wniosku o pomoc prawną. Jednocześnie warto wskazać, że w latach 1991-1995 Rząd Polski przekazał FR kopie kilkudziesięciu innych wniosków o uznanie za zmarłych polskich oficerów, policjantów i urzędników, ofiar Zbrodni Katyńskiej, wraz z zeznaniami ich najbliższych krewnych.

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

243

121. W konsekwencji, mając na uwadze treść dokumentów wytworzonych przez przedstawicieli

polskiego społeczeństwa PCK i organy polskiego wymiaru sprawiedliwości po 1945 r. wiarygodność wyników prac ekshumacyjnych w Lesie Katyńskim nie powinna być kwestionowana w trakcie postępowania przed Trybunałem.

4.

Odpowiedź na pytanie 4

122. W pytaniu czwartym Trybunał zwrócił się do stron o przedstawienie stanowiska co do tego,

czy mając na uwadze starania skarżących o uzyskanie informacji na temat ich zaginionych krewnych oraz sposób w jaki władze Federacji Rosyjskiej odpowiedziały na te zapytania, skarżący poddani byli traktowaniu zakazanemu przez art. 3 Konwencji (patrz np.

Gongadze p. Ukrainie, nr 34056/02, §§ 184-186, ECHR 2005-XI)?

123. Zgodnie z orzecznictwem Trybunału, aby można było stwierdzić, iż krewny ofiary

poddany został traktowaniu sprzecznemu z art. 3 Konwencji, należy ustalić istnienie wyjątkowych okoliczności, które sprawiają, że cierpienie krewnych ma inny wymiar i charakter niż ten nieodłącznie związany z faktem, że bliski stał się ofiarą poważnych naruszeń praw człowieka (por. Gongadze p. Ukrainie, op.cit., § 184).

124. Mając na względzie zasady płynące z orzecznictwa Trybunału należy zauważyć, że

w niniejszej sprawie osoby, które dostały się do niewoli i były przetrzymywane oraz następnie zamordowane przez władze radzieckie były najbliższymi krewnymi skarżących.

Z powodów politycznych przez wiele lat władze nie udostępniały żadnych oficjalnych informacji na temat losu osób wziętych do niewoli na przełomie 1939/1940 r. W 1990 r. władze radzieckie wszczęły z urzędu postępowanie mające na celu wyjaśnienie zdarzeń, do których doszło wiosną 1940 r. i w wyniku których rozstrzelanych zostało co najmniej ok. 22 tys. jeńców wojennych. Skarżący jako krewni ofiar podjęli próby otrzymania informacji o toczącym się postępowaniu oraz zapoznania się z materiałami śledztwa.

Ich działania były jednak całkowicie nieskuteczne. Brak skutecznego i rzetelnego śledztwa wszczętego przecież ex officio przez władze doprowadził w rezultacie do niemożności skorzystania przez skarżących w prawnej drogi rehabilitacji krewnych istniejącej w ramach rosyjskiego systemu sądowego. Przede wszystkim należy wskazać, że w trakcie postępowań skarżącym przedstawiano sprzeczne informacje dotyczące losu ich krewnych. Sposób postępowania władz w stosunku do skarżących, uniemożliwienie zapoznania się z materiałami śledztwa, a także stwierdzenie przez sąd, że w przypadku braku podstaw do rehabilitacji prokuratura przekazuje sprawę do sądu, ale wyłącznie na wniosek zainteresowanego poszkodowanego – w niniejsze sprawie krewnych skarżących, którzy zginęli w 1940 r. (por. paragraf 20) powodowały u skarżących stałą niepewność co do losu bliskich, uczucie stresu, całkowitego uzależnienia od działań podejmowanych przez władze, zmierzające do ich upokorzenia.

125. Trybunał wielokrotnie podkreślał w swoim orzecznictwie wyjątkowość sytuacji,

w której znajdują się krewni ofiar zaginionych. Wskazywał, że charakteryzuje się ona ciągłą niepewnością, będąca m.in. skutkiem braku poniesienia odpowiedzialności przez sprawców na skutek nierzetelnego śledztwa, czy wręcz w wyniku celowego ukrywania i zaciemniania wydarzeń, które miały miejsce. Taka sytuacja ciągnąca się przez lata, przedłuża cierpienie krewnych ofiar. Towarzysząca zaginięciu niemożność

244

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka uzyskania informacji o losie bliskich, pozwala na stwierdzenie istnienia sytuacji ciągłej.

Obowiązek proceduralny po stronie państwa wyjaśnienia losu zaginionych będzie więc potencjalnie istniał tak długo, jak długo nieznany jest los ofiar (por. Varnava i inni p.

Turcji, op.cit., § 148).

126. W świetle powyższych rozważań, zdaniem Rządu postępowanie władz rosyjskich w stosunku

do skarżących w trakcie trwających postępowań krajowych stanowiło naruszenia artykułu 3 Konwencji.

5.

Odpowiedź na pytanie 5

127. W piątym pytaniu Trybunał zwrócił się o udzielenie odpowiedzi w zakresie tego, czy

odmówienie skarżącym statusu ofiar w postępowaniu karnym (sprawa nr 159) oraz/lub dostępu do dokumentów dotyczących śledztwa w sprawie śmierci ich krewnych, było zgodne z art. 6 Konwencji.

128. W opinii Rządu w niniejszej sprawie będzie miał zastosowanie artykuł 6 Konwencji w aspekcie cywilnym. Równocześnie Rząd jest zdania, że w niniejszej doszło do naruszenia tego artykułu, ponieważ postępowanie władz rosyjskich nie było zgodne z wymogami art. 6.

129. Skarżący podejmując wysiłki w celu przystąpienia do postępowania toczącego się w Rosji zdawali sobie sprawę z upływu czasu, jaki nastąpił od zdarzeń, które były przedmiotem śledztwa władz rosyjskich. W konsekwencji celem działań skarżących nie było doprowadzenie do skazania osób winnych, a raczej do wyjaśnienia okoliczności śmierci ich bliskich. Skarżący usiłowali w postępowaniu krajowym wykorzystać prawa procesowe gwarantowane prawem rosyjskim w celu uzyskania wiarygodnych, rzetelnych i oficjalnych informacji dotyczących śmierci ich krewnych, którzy pozostawali w jurysdykcji państwa radzieckiego, w celu następczego domagania się rehabilitacji bliskich. Choć Konwencja nie gwarantuje bezpośrednio różnych form uczestnictwa w postępowaniu, jednakże jej gwarancje obejmują osoby, którym prawo krajowe stworzyło możliwości uczestnictwa w procesie (por. m.in. wyrok Kuśmierek p. Polsce, skarga nr 10675/02, wyrok z dnia 21 września 2004 r., § 48-49). W stosunku do ofiar przestępstw lub ich krewnych artykuł 6 § 1 może mieć zastosowanie do tych postępowań karnych, w których aspekt cywilny pozostaje tak blisko związany z aspektem karnym, iż wynik postępowania karnego może mieć decydujące znaczenie dla roszczenia strony cywilnej. Ponadto, zgodnie z orzecznictwem Trybunału nawet jeżeli postępowanie karne jest rozstrzygające jedynie w zakresie oskarżenia karnego, czynnikiem determinującym zastosowanie artykułu 6 Konwencji jest to, czy komponent cywilny postępowania pozostaje blisko związany z komponentem karnym, tzn. czy postępowanie karne oddziałuje na komponent cywilny (por. m.in. Calvelli i Ciglio p. Włochom, wyrok z 17 stycznia 2002 r., skarga nr 32967/96, § 62).

130. Jak już zostało wspomniane powyżej, granice zastosowania artykułu 6 określone są poprzez

fakt, że Konwencja nie przyznaje prawa do „prywatnej zemsty” lub do actio popularis.

Dlatego też Konwencja nie gwarantuje niezależnego prawa do tego, by domagać się ścigania i karania osób trzecich za popełnione przestępstwo, takie uprawnienie musi być nierozerwalnie związane z wykonywaniem prawa ofiary do wszczęcia w prawie krajowym

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

245

postępowania cywilnego, nawet jeżeli celem tego postępowania miałoby być jedynie symboliczne naprawienie szkody lub ochrona takiego prawa jak prawo do poszanowania dobrego imienia (por. Golder p. Wielkiej Brytanii, wyrok z 21 lutego 1975, skarga nr 4451/70, Series A nr 18, s. 13, § 27; Helmers p. Szwecji, wyrok z 29 października 1991r., skarga nr 11826/85, s. 14, § 27; oraz Tolstoy Miloslavsky p. Wlk. Brytanii, wyrok z 13 lipca 1995, skarga nr 18139/91, Series A nr 316-B, s. 78, § 58).

131. Rząd odnotowuje, iż zgodnie z orzecznictwem Trybunału koncepcja „cywilnych praw

i obowiązków” ma charakter autonomiczny, choć równocześnie w tym zakresie nie pozbawione znaczenia jest ustawodawstwo danego kraju. Dlatego też odpowiedź na pytanie, czy dane prawo może być traktowane jako prawo cywilne w rozumieniu Konwencji i czy w danych okolicznościach sprawy doszło do jego naruszenia, musi być udzielona przy uwzględnieniu nie tylko klasyfikacji prawnej tego prawa, ale także jego treści oraz skutków w świetle prawa krajowego danego państwa. Jednocześnie, co nie mniej ważne, Trybunał uznaje, że wykonując swoją funkcję nadzorczą musi on brać pod uwagę także przedmiot i cel Konwencji (por. Perez p. Francji, wyrok z 12 lutego 2004 r., skarga nr 47287/99, § 57).

132. Dokonując w swoich orzeczeniach klasyfikacji w świetle Konwencji statusu określonych

osób występujących w krajowych postępowaniach sądowych Trybunał wskazywał jak ważne jest zapewnienie ofiarom przestępstw praw oraz właściwej pozycji procesowej w postępowaniach karnych. Uznając zasadnicze różnice w wymogach wynikających z artykułu 6, jakie stawiane są rzetelnemu procesowi cywilnemu i karnemu, Trybunał stwierdził, że fakt tego zróżnicowania nie może powodować zignorowania trudnej sytuacji, w jakiej znajdują się ofiary lub umniejszenia znaczenia ich praw (por. Perez, op.cit., § 72).

Dlatego w świetle przedmiotu i celu Konwencji odmowa zastosowania gwarancji zawartych w artykule 6 powinna mieć charakter wyjątkowy (por. Pellegrin p. Francji, wyrok z 8 grudnia 1999 r., [WI], skarga nr 28541/95, § 64, ECHR 1999-VIII). Z tych właśnie względów Trybunał uznaje, że prowadzone przez władze państwowe postępowania muszą być poddane kontroli ze strony opinii publicznej, a we wszystkich sprawach, krewni ofiar muszą być zaangażowani w procedurę w stopniu koniecznym dla zapewnienia ich uzasadnionych interesów (zob. m.in. Güleç p. Turcji, op.cit., § 82; Öğur p. Turcji, op. cit, § 92; Gül p. Turcji , op.cit., § 93).

133. Zagwarantowanie właściwego poziomu ochrony praw ofiar przestępstw stanowi

stały przedmiot zainteresowania nie tylko Trybunału, ale także Komitetu Ministrów.

Rekomendacja nr R (85) 11 dotycząca pozycji ofiar w ramach prawa i procedury karnej, przyjęta przez Komitet Ministrów 28 czerwca 1985 przewiduje, iż: (…)

5. Dyskrecjonalna decyzja dotycząca tego, czy sprawca powinien być ścigany, nie powinna być wydana bez należytego rozważenia kwestii kompensacji ofiary, włączając w to starania czynione w tym względzie przez sprawcę; 6. Ofiara powinna być poinformowana o ostatecznej decyzji kończącej śledztwo, chyba że wskaże, że nie oczekuje takiej informacji; 7. Ofiara powinna mieć prawo odwołania się od decyzji odmawiającej ścigania do kompetentnych władz albo wszczęcia postępowania cywilnego.

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka

246 (…)

134. Rekomendacja nr R (87) 21 dotycząca pomocy do ofiar oraz zapobiegania wiktymizacji, przyjęta przez Komitet Ministrów 17 września 1987 r. rekomenduje, by państwa podjęły następujące środki: “…

4. zapewnienie, by ofiary przestępstw oraz ich rodziny, szczególnie te należące do grupy najbardziej wrażliwych, otrzymają w szczególności: …

– pomoc w trakcie procesu karnego, z należytym uwzględnieniem prawa do obrony; …”

135. Z kolei rekomendacja Rec(2000)19 z 6 października 2000 r. na temat roli prokuratury w systemie wymiaru sprawiedliwości w sprawach karnych przewiduje, że: “…

34. Zainteresowane strony korzystające z uznanego lub możliwego do ustalenia statusu, w szczególności ofiary, powinny mieć możliwość kwestionowania decyzji prokuratury o odmowie prowadzenia postępowania; do takiego odwołania strona powinna mieć prawo, jeżeli jest to wskazane po kontroli hierarchicznej takiej decyzji, albo w postaci odwołania do sądu albo wysunięcia oskarżenia prywatnego.

136. Rozpatrując niniejszą sprawę na tle międzynarodowych standardów ochrony ofiar

przestępstw Rząd pragnie zauważyć, iż z przedstawionych faktów bezsprzecznie wynika, iż prokuratura nigdy nie uznała statusu skarżących jako pokrzywdzonych w sprawie. Zostało to potwierdzone ostatecznie w orzeczeniu z 14 października 2008 r. wydanym przez Moskiewski Okręgowy Sąd Wojskowy. Odmowa nadania statusu ofiar uniemożliwiła skarżącym uczestnictwo w prowadzonym postępowaniu, w szczególności zapoznanie się z aktami śledztwa po zamknięciu postępowania przygotowawczego. W ten sposób władze rosyjskie uniemożliwiły skarżącym zapoznanie się ze zgromadzonym materiałem dowodowym, w którym, jak wskazywały na to pisma wcześniej uzyskane przez skarżących od prokuratury (np. pismo z 1998 r.) znajdowały się dokumenty odnoszące się do losu krewnych skarżących. Skarżący nigdy nie mieli możliwości zweryfikowania stwierdzenia zawartego np. w orzeczeniu z dnia 14 października 2008 r. Moskiewskiego Okręgowego Sądu Wojskowego, który stwierdził, że „w toku śledztwa katyńskiego nie ustalono informacji na temat dalszych losów tych osób” – krewnych skarżących.

Skarżący nie mieli możliwości zapoznania się całością materiałów śledztwa i faktycznego zweryfikowania, że prokuratura nie ustaliła informacji na temat dalszych losów tych osób. Brak dostępu do materiałów śledztwa oraz bezskuteczne zaskarżanie wydanych przez prokuraturę postanowień, miały negatywne konsekwencje dla dochodzenia przez skarżących w krajowym postępowaniu rehabilitacyjnym rehabilitacji ofiar.

137. Pisma procesowe składane przez skarżących od 1997 r. powinny być traktowane jako wnioski o nadanie statusu pokrzywdzonych, ponieważ ich celem było uzyskanie

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

247

informacji koniecznych do późniejszej rehabilitacji ofiar. Mimo iż prokuratura rosyjska nigdy formalnie nie ustosunkowała się do tych wniosków przedkładanych przez skarżących i ich pełnomocników, oficjalna informacja przekazana w piśmie z 23 listopada 2005 r. Głównej Prokuratury Wojskowej, iż w treści postanowienia o zakończeniu śledztwa katyńskiego znajdują się informacje stanowiące tajemnicę państwową, dlatego zgodnie z rozdziałem 6 Ustawy o tajemnicy państwowej i art. 2 Europejskiej Konwencji o wzajemnej pomocy w sprawach karnych dokument ten nie podlega rozpowszechnieniu i nie może zostać przekazany stronie polskiej, powinna zostać potraktowana jako stanowiąca per facta concludentia przyznanie im statusu ofiary. Ponadto należy zaznaczyć, że w ramach standardu rzetelnego postępowania obowiązkiem władz rosyjskich było udzielenie skarżącym wyczerpującej informacji o ich uprawnieniach procesowych. Prawo do informacji jest integralnym elementem rzetelnego procesu, w szczególności w sytuacji, gdy postępowanie prowadzone jest, tak jak w niniejszym przypadku, poza granicami państwa, którego obywatelami są skarżący. Całokształt działań prokuratury dobitnie świadczy o braku woli poinformowania skarżących o ich uprawnieniach procesowych. Nawet jeżeli prokuratura rosyjska nie traktowała pism skarżących jako formalnych wniosków o nadanie im statusu pokrzywdzonych, powinna udzielić im rzetelnej informacji o tym, jakich formalności powinni dopełnić, aby ten status uzyskać.

138. Niepoinformowanie skarżących, pomimo składanych przez nich pism, o przysługujących

im uprawnieniach procesowych oraz formalna odmowa zapoznania się przez nich z materiałami śledztwa uniemożliwiły skarżącym aktywne uczestnictwo w prowadzonym postępowaniu. W ten sposób władze rosyjskie uniemożliwiły skarżącym dochodzenie w postępowaniu krajowym ich praw, szczególnie biorąc pod uwagę wpływ, jaki na możliwość prowadzenia postępowa rehabilitacyjnych miał wynik śledztwa nr 159.

139. Aby skarżący objęci byli gwarancjami z art. 6 konieczne jest stwierdzenie, iż prowadzone

przez władze rosyjskie postępowania dotyczyły ich praw o charakterze cywilnym. Jak już zostało wskazane powyżej, skarżący usiłowali w postępowaniu krajowym wykorzystać prawa procesowe gwarantowane prawem rosyjskim w celu uzyskania wiarygodnych, rzetelnych i oficjalnych informacji dotyczących śmierci ich krewnych, którzy pozostawali w jurysdykcji państwa radzieckiego, a następnie ubiegania się o rehabilitację krewnych.

Przekazane skarżącym w toku postępowania krajowego dokumenty zawierały sprzeczne informacje o losie ich krewnych. Dlatego też bez jakichkolwiek wątpliwości można uznać, że cel, który przyświecał skarżącym to wyjaśnienie okoliczności śmierci osób najbliższych.

Zgodnie z orzecznictwem Trybunału dla oceny prawa, którego ochrony domaga się skarżący niezmiernie ważna jest motywacja skarżącego; artykuł 6 nie będzie miał zastosowania jeżeli jedynym celem skarżącego jest uzyskanie skazania oskarżonego, a nie ochrona lub zadośćuczynienie naruszeniu praw skarżącego o charakterze cywilnym (por. Sigalas p. Grecji, wyrok z 22 września 2005 r., skarga nr 19754/02, § 27-30). W niniejszej sprawie należy stwierdzić, że wynik postępowania był decydujący dla „prawa cywilnego” skarżących – prawa do uzyskania informacji o okolicznościach śmierci, miejscu pochówku osób bliskich a następnie ubiegania się o rehabilitację. Należy podkreślić, że wgląd do dokumentów śledztwa, a w szczególności do ewentualnych zachowanych materiałów dowodowych, takich jak pamiątki po zmarłych, ma ogromne znaczenie emocjonalne dla krewnych. Rozbieżności co do tego, czy władze posiadają dokumenty potwierdzające śmierć krewnych skarżących

248

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka powodowały dodatkowo, że roszczenie skarżących pozostawało aktualne także z upływem czasu.

140. Wymóg dostępu do akt sprawy wynika z zasady kontradyktoryjności procesu zawartej

w artykule 6 Konwencji, oznacza ona, że w postępowaniu karnym zarówno prokuratorowi, jak i obronie musi być stworzona możliwość zapoznania się i skomentowania stanowiska i dowodów przedstawionych przez drugą stronę. Z samego sformułowania artykułu 6 – a w szczególności z autonomicznego znaczenia nadanego pojęciu „sprawy” w rozumieniu Konwencji – wynika, iż przepis ten ma częściowe zastosowanie do postępowania przygotowawczego (por. Imbrioscia p. Szwajcarii, wyrok z 24 listopada 1993 r., skarga nr 13972/88, Series A no. 275, p. 13, § 36., Rajkowska, op.cit.), z pewnością zaś znajdzie zastosowanie do postępowań rehabilitacyjnych. Trybunał dopuszcza też w swoim orzecznictwie, by gwarancje z artykułu 6 miały zastosowanie dla krewnych ofiary również do postępowania przygotowawczego, o ile dochodzą oni praw o charakterze cywilnym (por. Perez, op.cit., § 66).

141. Brak przestrzegania w postępowaniu krajowym zasady kontradyktoryjności oraz

równości stron, gwarantowanych przecież prawem rosyjskim, które to zasady stanowią istotny element rzetelności postępowania cywilnego zgodnie z art. 6 Konwencji, a w konsekwencji niedopuszczenie skarżących pomimo podstaw prawnych do postępowania, odczytać można jako chęć uniemożliwienia im oceny rzetelności postępowania prowadzonego przez władze rosyjskie. A rzetelność ta może być poddana w wątpliwość w świetle przedstawionych powyżej okoliczności faktycznych.

142. W latach 1998-2008 skarżący składali liczne pisma procesowe mające na celu początkowo uzyskanie informacji o toczącym się śledztwie nr 159, a następnie wnioski o rehabilitację krewnych. Z początkowych informacji udzielonych w 1998 r. przez Główną Prokuraturę Wojskową wynikało, iż wniosek o rehabilitację rozstrzelanych może być rozpatrzony dopiero po zakończeniu śledztwa karnego w sprawie.

143. Natomiast po zakończeniu śledztwa, o którym to wydarzeniu skarżący nigdy nie zostali

poinformowani w sposób oficjalny, 18 stycznia 2006 r. Główna Prokuratura Wojskowa poinformowała, iż brak jest podstaw do rehabilitacji Wincentego Wołka i innych polskich obywateli. Prokuratura wskazała, iż art. 3 pkt. “b” [б] Ustawy o rehabilitacji ofiar represji politycznych (Ustawa rehabilitacyjna), na który powoływał się Wydział Konsularny wnioskujący o informację w imieniu skarżących, dotyczy rehabilitacji osób poddanych represjom karnym z powodów politycznych. Zdaniem prokuratury ponieważ w ramach śledztwa katyńskiego nr 159 nie ustalono, na podstawie którego przepisu kodeksu karnego w redakcji z 1926 r. Wincenty Wołk i inni polscy oficerowie pociągnięci zostali do odpowiedzialności karnej, jak również z uwagi na zniszczenie dokumentów w sprawie, brak jest podstaw do ich rehabilitacji.

144. Wnioski o rehabilitację ofiar złożone zostały m.in. w dniu 21 stycznia 2007 r. przez panią

Ojcumiłę Wołk oraz w dniu 21 lutego 2008 r. przez pełnomocników reprezentujących wszystkich skarżących.

145. Oba wnioski zostały oddalone odpowiednio 12 lutego 2007 r. (patrz par. 13) oraz 13 marca 2008 r. (patrz par. 15). W obu przypadkach prokuratura powołała się na

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

249

brak informacji na temat spraw karnych dotyczących ofiar lub jakichkolwiek innych informacji o zastosowaniu wobec nich represji, co uniemożliwiało jej zdaniem wydanie w oparciu o Ustawę rehabilitacyjną postanowienia w sprawie rehabilitacji lub jej odmowy.

146. Bezskuteczne okazały się kolejne odwołania skarżących (z 4 maja 2008 r., 4 sierpnia 2008

r., 24 października 2008 r. oraz 5 listopada 2008 r.), w których powoływali się oni m.in. na to, że odpowiedzi prokuratury na ich formalne wnioski nie miały odpowiedniej formy procesowej, a także w których przedstawiali oni merytoryczne argumenty przemawiające za koniecznością uwzględnienia wniosków. Wnioski te były oddalane w sposób mechaniczny, a organy do których były składane – prokuratura i sądy, powielały te same argumenty. Ponadto, należy wskazać, że Moskiewski Sąd Rejonowy w Chamownikach uznał, że skarga na odmowę wydania przez prokuraturę postanowienia o rehabilitacji może zostać wniesiona tylko przez obywatela, którego prawa zostały naruszone.

Zdaniem sądu w odniesieniu do wniosków składanych przez skarżących powinny być to osoby zaginione w 1940 r. (patrz par. 18). Dodatkowo w orzeczeniu z 24 października 2008 r. sąd ten uznał, że o ile zaświadczenia o rehabilitacji mogą zostać wydane krewnym ofiar, o tyle w przypadku braku podstaw do rehabilitacji prokuratura przekazuje sprawę do sądu, ale wyłącznie na wniosek zainteresowanego poszkodowanego (patrz par. 20).

147. W dotychczasowym orzecznictwie Trybunał stwierdzał, że jego rolą zgodnie z Konwencją jest dokonanie oceny, czy postępowanie będące przedmiotem skargi było jako całość rzetelne (por. m.in. García Ruiz v. Spain, wyrok z 21 stycznia 1999 r.

[WI], skarga nr 30544/96, §§ 28-29). W okolicznościach niniejszej sprawy, mając na względzie w szczególności wszystkie opisane powyżej zaniechania władz rosyjskich i w konsekwencji negatywne rozpatrzenie wniosków skarżących o rehabilitację krewnych można stwierdzić, że postępowanie prowadzone przez władze rosyjskie nie spełniało jako całość wymogów zawartych w artykule 6 Konwencji, doszło więc do naruszenia tego artykułu.

6.

Odpowiedź na pytanie 6

148. W szóstym pytaniu Trybunał zwrócił się o przedstawienie stanowiska w zakresie tego,

czy w sytuacji odmowy nadania skarżącym statusu ofiar w postępowaniu karnym (sprawa nr 159) oraz/lub dostępu do dokumentów dotyczących śledztwa w sprawie śmierci ich krewnych, skarżącym przysługiwał skuteczny środek na ich roszczenia, jak wymaga tego art. 13 Konwencji?

149. Artykuł 13 Konwencji gwarantuje dostępność na poziomie krajowym środka w celu

dochodzenia naruszenia praw i wolności gwarantowanych Konwencją, niezależnie od tego, w jakiej formie zagwarantowany jest on w krajowym porządku prawym. Oznacza to, że każda osoba domagająca się w uzasadniony sposób uznania za pokrzywdzoną naruszeniem jej praw gwarantowanych Konwencją, powinna mieć do dyspozycji środek odwoławczy umożliwiający rozpatrzenie jej sprawy (stwierdzenie, że doszło do naruszenia) i naprawienie szkody (por. Lithgow p. Wlk. Brytanii, wyrok z dnia 8 lipca 1986 r., skargi nr 9006/80; 9262/81; 9263/81; 9265/81; 9266/81; 9313/81;

250

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka 9405/81, § 205). W tym względzie państwa korzystają ze swobody wyboru sposobu, w jaki wypełnią powstałe dla nich na gruncie tego zobowiązania. Zakres obowiązków wynikających z art. 13 różni się w zależności od charakteru prawa, którego naruszenie się zarzuca. Środek musi być jednak skuteczny prawnie oraz w praktyce (por. Melnik p.

Ukrainie, wyrok z 28 marca 2006 r., skarga nr 72286/01, § 114).

150. Należy pamiętać, że zgodnie z utrwalonym orzecznictwem Trybunału w razie dającego się

uzasadnić zarzutu, że ofiara została bezprawnie pozbawiona życia przez funkcjonariuszy państwa, pojęcie skutecznego środka odwoławczego w rozumieniu artykułu 13 obejmuje rekompensatę szkody oraz skuteczne i dokładne śledztwo pozwalające doprowadzić do ustalenia i ukarania sprawców z zapewnieniem krewnym skutecznego udziału w tym śledztwie. W tym zakresie w sprawach dotyczących prawa do życia wymagania art. 13 są szersze niż obowiązek proceduralny na podstawie art. 2 (por. Kaya p. Turcji, op.cit., § 107).

Dodatkowo, skuteczność środka w praktyce musi polegać na tym, że korzystanie z niego nie może być w sposób nieuzasadniony utrudniane poprzez działania lub zaniechania władz państwa (por. Aksoy p. Turcji, wyrok z 18 grudnia 1996 r., Reports 1996-VI, p. 2286, § 95; oraz Aydin p. Turcji wyrok z 25 września 1997, Reports 1997-VI, s. 1895-96, § 103).

151. W systemie prawa rosyjskiego istnieją dwie drogi w ramach których ofiary nielegalnych

bądź przestępczych aktów, które można przypisać państwu lub jego funkcjonariuszom, mogą domagać się ochrony ich praw: postępowanie cywilne oraz karne. W kontekście niniejszej sprawy Rząd chciałby przypomnieć, iż Trybunał ocenił już we wcześniej rozstrzyganych sprawach, iż rząd rosyjski nie przedstawił żadnych przykładów z praktyki potwierdzających, że sądy rosyjskie byłyby w stanie w braku jakiegokolwiek rezultatu śledztwa, jak np. zidentyfikowania potencjalnych sprawców – pozwanych, rozważyć co do meritum roszczenia cywilne pokrzywdzonych (por. Baysayeva p. Rosji, wyrok z 5 kwietnia 2007 r., skarga nr 74237/01, § 106). Te spostrzeżenia doprowadziły Trybunał do wniosku, iż w rozpatrywanych sprawach doszło do naruszenia art. 2 w zw. z art. 13. Należy zauważyć, że w niniejszej sprawie wielokrotne odwołania skarżących dotyczące braku dostępu do akt śledztwa i umorzenia postępowania były całkowicie bezskuteczne. Zdaniem Rządu nie ma przesłanek, które uzasadniałyby odejście od wcześniejszej linii orzeczniczej Trybunału w niniejszej sprawie. Dodatkowo mając na uwadze, iż zdaniem Trybunału zobowiązanie państwa w zakresie zapewnienia skutecznego środka odwoławczego nie jest zobowiązaniem w zakresie rezultatu, sprzeczne decyzje organów procesowych, przepisywanie całych fragmentów uzasadnień świadczą o braku skutecznego środka odwoławczego.

152. Rząd Polski pragnie jednocześnie zwrócić uwagę, iż w toku postępowania przed rosyjskimi

sądami skarżącym jako obcokrajowcom odmówiono dostępu do postanowienia GPW z dnia 21 września 2004 r. o umorzeniu śledztwa katyńskiego ze względu na utajnienie treści tego postanowienia mocą decyzji Międzyresortowej Komisji ds. Ochrony Tajemnicy Państwowej z dnia 22 grudnia 2004 r. Fakt, iż to Międzyresortowa Komisja wydała w dniu 22 grudnia 2004 r. decyzję o utajnieniu postanowienia o umorzeniu śledztwa katyńskiego potwierdza FR swoim stanowisku przed Trybunałem (patrz paragraf 34 Obserwacji Rządu FR). Niemniej, na posiedzeniu sądowym w dniu 13 lipca 2010 r. w toku postępowania ze skargi Stowarzyszenia Memoriał przed Moskiewskim Sądem Miejskim, odczytane zostało skierowane do sądu pismo Międzyresortowej

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

251

Komisja z dnia 25 czerwca 2010 r. (Załącznik 5), w którym stwierdziła ona że „w dniu 22 grudnia 2004 r. decyzja [Międzyresortowej Komisji] o utajnieniu postanowienia Głównej Prokuratury Wojskowej z dnia 21 września 2004 r. o umorzeniu śledztwa karnego nr 159 nie została wydana”. Powyższy list Komisji podważa więc wcześniej prezentowane przez władze rosyjskie stanowisko, także w postępowaniu przed Trybunałem, iż to Komisja utajniła postanowienie o umorzeniu rosyjskiego śledztwa katyńskiego.

153. Mając na uwadze powyższe wyjaśnienia zdaniem Rządu w niniejszej skardze doszło do naruszenia art. 13 Konwencji.

II.

WNIOSKI KOŃCOWE

154. W świetle przedstawionych obserwacji, Rząd Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej twierdzi, że skarga nr 29520/09 powinna zostać uznana za dopuszczalną zgodnie z art. 34 i 35 Konwencji.

155. W każdym razie Rząd twierdzi, że w obecnej sprawie doszło do naruszenia aspektu proceduralnego art. 2 Konwencji oraz naruszenia art. 3, 6 i 13 Konwencji.

Załączniki: Załącznik nr 1, 2, 3, 4 i 5.

252

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka

Written Submission by the Government of Poland dated 29 July 2010 in the case Wołk-Jezierska and Others v. Russia I. INTRODUCTION 1. The Government of the Republic of Poland (“Government”) are honored to submit to the

European Court of Human Rights (“Court”) their observations relating to the application lodged by Ms Witomiła Wołk-Jezierska (first applicant), Ms Ojcumiła Wołk (second applicant), Ms Wanda Rodowicz (third applicant), Ms Halina Michalska (fourth applicant), Mr Artur Tomaszewski (fifth applicant), Mr Jerzy Lech Wielebnowski (sixth applicant), Mr Gustaw Erchard (seventh applicant), Mr Jerzy Karol Malewicz (eighth applicant), Mr Krzysztof Jan Malewicz (ninth applicant), Ms Krystyna Krzyszkowiak (tenth applicant), Ms Irena Erchard (eleventh applicant), Ms Krystyna Mieszczankowska (twelfth applicant) and Mr Krzysztof Romanowski (thirteenth applicant), all Polish citizens. The Government wish to note that the Court’s Statement of Facts distorted the name of the relative of the fourth applicant: he is Sanisław Uziembło, born in 1889.

2. The instant case derives from complaint No 29520/09, lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 24 May 2009. As elaborated by the Court in its questions addressed to the Government of the Russian Federation, the instant case concerns the following questions:

1) Having regard in particular to the Court’s finding on its jurisdiction ratione temporis in the Varnava and Others case (see Varnava and Others v. Turkey [GC], nos. 16064/90, 16065/90, 16066/90, 16068/90, 16069/90, 16070/90, 16071/90, 16072/90 and 16073/90, par. 136-150, 18 September 2009), was the investigation into the death of the applicants’ relatives carried out by the Russian authorities, adequate and efficient as required by Article 2 of the Convention? In particular, were the applicants given sufficient access to the materials of the investigation, including the collected evidence and procedural decisions?

2) The Government are requested to produce a copy of the decision to discontinue criminal proceedings in the “Katyń” case (No. 159) dated 21 September 2004.

3) The parties are requested to produce documents concerning the applicants’ relatives, such as the relevant entries in the NKVD lists and the protocols of the 1943 excavations in the part concerning the identification of three of the applicants’ relatives.

4) Having regard to the applicants’ attempts to obtain information about their disappeared relatives and the way in which the Russian authorities responded to those enquiries, were the applicants subjected to the treatment of the kind proscribed

by Article 3 of the Convention (see, for example, Gongadze v. Ukraine, no. 34056/02, par. 184-186, ECHR 2005‑XI)?

5) Was it compatible with Article 6 of the Convention that the applicants were denied the status of the victims in the criminal proceedings (case no. 159) and/or access to the documents concerning the investigation into the death of their relatives?

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

253

6) Finally, did the applicants have an effective domestic remedy for their grievances at their disposal, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?

3. The Government of the Republic of Poland submit to the European Court of Human

Rights that application no. 29520/09 should be admitted in accordance with Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention.

4. In any case, the Government allege that Article 2 of the Convention under its procedural limb, along with Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention, were all violated in the instant case.

II. THE FACTS A. Circumstances of the case 5. The Government concur with the facts of this application as presented in the Statement of

Facts prepared by the Court. At the same time, they wish to present additional information (bold print), pursuant to the documents appended to this application by the applicants, which have bearing on the case.

6. First of all, the Government of Poland wish to underline that the execution by the

NKVD of Polish prisoners of war held in camps at Starobelsk, Kozelsk, Ostashkov, and in prisons of the so-called Western Belarus and so-called Western Ukraine is referred to in Poland as the “Katyń Crime”. The use of the phrase “Katyń events” does not reflect the importance attached in Polish history to the murder in 1940 of Polish prisoners by Soviet authorities.

Proceedings regarding the rehabilitation of the applicants’ relatives

7. The applicants repeatedly petitioned different authorities of the Russian Federation, first

and foremost the Chief Military Prosecutor’s Office, for information on Katyń investigation No. 159 and for the rehabilitation of their relatives.

8. On 21 April 1998 the Chief Military Prosecutor’s Office, in its letter (file No.

3y-6818-90) conveyed through the Consular Section of the Polish Embassy in Moscow its response to the request of the second applicant, Ms Ojcumiła Wołk, for the rehabilitation of her husband, Wincenty Wołk. The Prosecutor’s Office advised the applicant that the name of her husband was on the list of prisoners of the NKVD camp at Kozelsk and that he had been shot in the spring of 1940 together with other prisoners. Moreover, the prosecution stated that the motion for rehabilitation could only be considered after the conclusion of the criminal investigation relating to the case.

9. On 25 October 2005 the first applicant, Ms Witomiła Wołk-Jezierska, having in mind

the conclusion of Katyń investigation No. 159 and the fact that the decision in the matter had supposedly been classified, petitioned the Chief Military Prosecutor’s Office for information on the future of the Katyń investigation and for a copy of the decision on its discontinuation, and if the decision had indeed been classified – for its reconsideration. The first applicant also emphasized to the prosecution the

254

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka significance of Article 2 of the Convention in the context of the Katyń investigation No. 159. According to the first applicant, Article 2 of the Convention required that an efficient investigation be conducted, all circumstances of the crime brought to light and the results of the investigation be revealed for the purpose of punishing the perpetrators.

10. On 7 December 2005 the Consular Section of the Polish Embassy in Moscow

conveyed the reply of the Chief Military Prosecutor’ Office to the motion of the first applicant, Ms Witomiła Wołk-Jezierska, of 25 October 2005. In its letter dated 23 November 2005 the Chief Military Prosecutor’s Office informed the first applicant that the decision on the discontinuation of the Katyń investigation contained state secrets and for that reason, in compliance with Chapter 6 of the Law on State Secrets and Article 2 of the European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters the document was not subject to publication and could not be handed over to the Polish side. In its letter of 7 December 2005 the Consular Section of the Polish Embassy in Moscow also advised the first applicant that it would ask the Chief Military Prosecutor’s Office for an explanation concerning the rehabilitation of Wincenty Wołk, which matter was to be resolved after the conclusion of Katyń investigation No. 159. The relevant motion was lodged on 8 December 2005.

11. On 18 January 2006 the Chief Military Prosecutor’s Office responded to the motion

of 8 December 2005 filed by the Consular Section of the Polish Embassy in Moscow.

The prosecution stated that there was no basis for the rehabilitation of Wincenty Wołk and the other Polish citizens. The prosecution declared that Article 3 “b” [б] of the Law on the Rehabilitation of Victims of Political Repression (Rehabilitation Law), invoked by the Consular Section, applied to the rehabilitation of persons subjected to penal repressions for political reasons. Since Katyń investigation No. 159 had not determined which provision of the 1926 Criminal Code had been the basis for the repression against Wincenty Wołk and other Polish officers, and also in view of the destruction of the case documents, there were no grounds for rehabilitation. On 1 February 2006 the Consular Section conveyed to the first applicant, Witomiła Wołk-Jezierska, the response of the Chief Military Prosecutor’s Office dated 18 January 2006.

12. On 21 January 2007, the second applicant, Ojcumiła Wołk, lodged a motion with

the Chief Military Prosecutor’s Office for the rehabilitation of her husband on the basis of the Rehabilitation Law. The second applicant substantiated her motion by pointing out that her husband had been the victim of a political murder committed

by NKVD officers who were implementing the decision of 5 March 1940 of the Politburo of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. She further underlined that her husband’s name was on the list of prisoners of the NKVD camp at Kozelsk and his body had been identified during the exhumation in 1943.

13. On 12 February 2007 the Chief Military Prosecutor’s Office replied to the motion for the rehabilitation of Wincenty Wołk. The prosecution claimed that the Rehabilitation Law could only be applied to persons who had been subjected

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

255

to repressions for political reasons. The prosecution letter further advised that Russian judicial, prosecution and internal affairs authorities, when deciding if a given persons was eligible for rehabilitation, “were guided by the files of penal and administrative proceedings and other documented information that had served as basis for the application of repressions”. Since in the case of Wincenty Wołk there was no information about penal proceedings against him or any other information about repressions against him, “the question of his rehabilitation or his lack of eligibility for rehabilitation cannot be considered as to its merits”.

14. On 21 February 2008 counsel for all the applicants filed a motion with the Chief

Military Prosecutor’s Office for the rehabilitation of the applicants’ relatives murdered by the NKVD in 1940. The rehabilitation motion referred to a number of factual and legal circumstances. The applicants underscored that the very language of Lavrenty Beria’s motion of 5 March 1940 and of the Politburo decision of the same date concerning the execution of the Polish prisoners of war – “hardened enemies of the Soviet government, filled with hatred for the Soviet system” – testified to the political motive of the crime. Furthermore, the execution of Polish citizens on the basis of a decision by a non-judicial organ, the so-called “troika”, had the character of political repression in the meaning of Article 3 “b” and “e” of the Rehabilitation Law. The applicants also invoked decision No. 1247 of the Government of the Russian Federation of 19 October 1996 on the establishment of memorials at sites where Polish and Soviet citizens, “victims of totalitarian repression”, were buried. In conclusion the applicants called on the prosecution to consider the motion, issue certificates that political repressions had been applied against their relatives and, in the event of absence of grounds for rehabilitation, to refer the case to a court.

15. On 13 March 2008 the Chief Military Prosecutor’s Office rejected the motion for

rehabilitation filed by counsel on behalf of all the applicants. The prosecution stated that it was not able to determine the legal basis for the repressions against the Polish citizens in 1940. In particular, the prosecution ascertained that despite the existence of a number of documents affirming that the relatives of the applicants had been transferred from the NKVD camps at Ostashkov, Kozelsk, and Starobelsk to Kalinin, Smolensk and Kharkov, the joint works by Polish, Ukrainian, Belarusian and Russian investigators had not yielded any penal files or other documents about their persecution in 1940. Furthermore, it was not possible to reproduce such documents. In view of the absence of any files pertaining to penal or administrative cases, affirming the application of repressions, it was not possible to rule on the basis of the Rehabilitation Law as to the admissibility of rehabilitation. According to the prosecution, it was also not possible to apply the provisions of the Rehabilitation Law per analogiam in the situation of the applicants’ relatives. Furthermore, the prosecution declared that the remains of the applicants’ relatives had not been discovered among human remains found during the exhumation works conducted during Katyń investigation No. 159.

16. On 4 May 2008 counsel for all the applicants, acting on the basis of Article 254 of the

256

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka Code of Civil Proceedings, filed the Khamovnicheskiy District Court in Moscow an 11-page-long judicial complaint against “the answer” of the prosecution dated 13 March 2008. It was emphasized in the complaint that pursuant to Article 8 (3) of the Rehabilitation Law the prosecution reply was incompatible with the proscribed judicial form. In accordance with its provisions, the prosecution decision should have had the form of a certificate of rehabilitation for subjecting the victims to political repressions, and in the event of absence of grounds for rehabilitation in case categories specified in Article 3 “a”, “b”, “d” and “f” of the Rehabilitation Law – it should have been referred to the competent court. The applicants further held that the decision of the Soviet Politburo dated 5 March 1940 clearly excluded the application of penal procedures against the applicants’ relatives. Instead of that, decisions about the execution of Polish officers were taken by the so-called “troika”, i.e. extrajudicial Soviet organ. For that reason the prosecution claim that it could not issue a decision on rehabilitation because of a lack of documents was unconvincing. That position was also unjustified in the light of the decision of 21 September 2004 on the discontinuation of Katyń investigation No. 159, in which the prosecution admitted that crimes had been perpetrated against Polish citizens.

The applicants further cited a number of Russian documents confirming that “the totalitarian regime” had applied political repressions against Polish citizens in 1940 – which justified their rehabilitation. In their arguments the applicants also cited Article 8 of the Convention and the judgment of the European Court in the case of Moreno Gomez v. Spain. In conclusion, the applicants asked the court to rule that the prosecution decision on the rehabilitation of the Polish citizens, in the form of its “answer” of 13 March 2008, was unlawful, and to obligate the prosecution to reconsider the applicants’ motion and issue a decision on the rehabilitation of their relatives.

17. On 16 May 2008, the Khamovnicheskiy District Court in Moscow found that in

line with literal interpretation of Article 8 of the Rehabilitation Law, in connection with Article 1 of the Act on Complaints Against Actions and Decisions Violating Civic Rights and Freedoms, a complaint against prosecution refusal to issue a decision on rehabilitation could only be filed by a citizen whose rights had been violated. In consequence, the court held that the applicants were not entitled to file a judicial complaint under Article 254 of the Code of Civil Proceedings.

18. On 4 August 2008 counsel for all the applicants filed with the Khamovnicheskyi District Court in Moscow a second, supplemented judicial complaint against the lack of decision by the Chief Military Prosecutor’s Office. The complaint repeated the arguments contained in the original complaint filed on May 4 2008. The case was registered with file number 2-2177/08.

19. On 24 October 2008 counsel for all the applicants filed two motions with the court. Under the first motion, the applicants requested that the Chief Military Prosecutor’s Office provide access to the classified decision of September 21 2004 concerning discontinuation of Katyń investigation No. 159 and to all other investigation documents concerning their relatives. Under the second motion, the

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

257

applicants requested that the case be referred to the Moscow City Court competent in civil matters involving state secrets. Both motions were substantiated with the argument that the attachment of the above documents to the files of the proceedings in question and their transfer to the Moscow City Court would make it possible to obtain essential information about the repressions applied against the applicants’ relatives. In particular, it would make it possible to challenge the prosecution claim that no criminal case files or other documents on the use of repressions had been discovered in the course of Katyń investigation No. 159.

20. On 24 October 2008 the Khamovnicheskyi District Court in Moscow rejected the

judicial complaint of 4 August 2008. While the court did affirm that the names of the applicants’ relatives had been found on lists of prisoners of the NKVD camps at Ostashkov, Starobelsk, and Kozelsk, it pointed out that the exhumations conducted in the course of Katyń investigation No. 159 resulted in the identification of only 22 bodies, which did not include those of the applicants’ relatives. Thus, the fate of the applicants’ relatives remained unknown. The court further found that no act of repression against the applicants’ relatives had been determined. Accordingly, the prosecution, when replying to the motion for rehabilitation of the applicants’ relatives did not issue a certificate envisioned by the Rehabilitation Law, but responded in accordance with regulations applied to all complaints and motions.

The court further stated that while rehabilitation certificates could be issued to victims’ relatives, in the event of a lack of grounds for rehabilitation the prosecution referred the case to a court but exclusively at the motion of the interested injured party. On 31 October 2008 the applicants appealed against the judgment of the Khamovnicheskyi District Court in Moscow dated 24 October 2008.

21. In its judgment of 24 October 2008 the Khamovnicheskyi District Court in Moscow

also rejected the applicants’ motion for publication of the classified decision of 21 September 2004 and referral of the case to the Moscow City Court. On 5 November 2008 a cassation appeal was filed with the Moscow City Court against the aforementioned judgment. Counsel for the applicants requested to change the judgment of 24 October 2008 and reconsider the case in the first instance by a different panel of judges.

22. On 25 November 2008 the Moscow City Court issued a laconic ruling, rejecting

both the appeal of 31 October 2008 and the cassation complaint of 24 October 2008.

Appeal against the decision to discontinue the investigation No. 159

23. On 4 May 2008 counsel for all the applicants filed an appeal on the basis of Article 125 of

the Code of Criminal Proceedings against the decision of the Chief Military Prosecutor’s Office of 21 September 2004 to discontinue Katyń investigation No.159.

24. On 5 June 2008 the Khamovnicheskiy District Court in Moscow rejected the appeal on procedural grounds. The court ruled it had no jurisdiction in the case.

25. On 7 July 2008 the Criminal Division of the Moscow City Court upheld the decision of the court of the first instance.

258

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka

26. On 20 August 2008 counsel for the applicants filed an appeal with the Moscow District

Military Court against the discontinuation of Katyń investigation No. 159. It was underlined in the appeal that the applicants’ relatives had been among the detained Polish officers executed on the basis of the Soviet Politburo decision. The applicants referred to a statement by the Chief Military Prosecutor who disclosed that thanks to information obtained from “our Ukrainian, Belarusian and Polish colleagues it was determined that 14 542 persons had been held in the territory of the former USSR. The death was confirmed of 1 803 of them...”. However, the applicants were not granted victim status, even though the statement of the Chief Military Prosecutor indicated that a crime had been committed against the Polish officers, resulting in physical, mental and moral injury. Furthermore, under Article 42 (8) of the Code of Criminal Proceedings the rights of victims after their death ought to be transferred to members of their immediate families – the applicants. Thus, the applicants were deprived of the possibility of submitting motions and observations, access to the case files, and receiving copies of decisions. The applicants claimed that the investigation was inefficient and that no attempt had been made to obtain biological samples from them in order to identify the exhumed human remains. In consequence, the applicants filed a motion with the court asking that the decision of 21 September 2004 be invalidated and that the prosecution grant them victim status.

27. On 14 October 2008 the Moscow District Military Court rejected the appeal. It found

that an analysis of the materials of Katyń investigation No. 159 irrefutably indicated that 1,803 Polish citizens, previously held at the NKVD camps of Ostashkov, Starobelsk and Kozelsk, had been shot to death and that their remains had been exhumed. The court stated that in 1943 the International Commission and the Technical Commission of the Red Cross had excavated the remains and then reburied them, without identifying the bodies and without counting them. A subsequent excavation in 1991 had identified only 22 persons and the applicants’ relatives were not among them. The Military Court, referring to volumes 3, 11, 120 and 183 of the Katyń investigation, admitted that the names of the applicants’ relatives were in fact on the lists of persons held at the NKVD camps in Ostashkov, Starobelsk and Kozelsk ,“though the Katyń investigation had not established the fate of the said individuals”. Their bodies had not been identified. Thus there was no proof that the applicants’ relatives had lost their lives as a result of the crime of abuse of power (Article 193 17 of the 1926 Soviet Criminal Code), referred to in the decision of 21 September 2004 to discontinue Katyń investigation No. 159. Accordingly, there was no basis to grant victim status to the applicants’ relatives under Article 42 of the Code of Criminal Proceedings. The court also found that the prosecution answer of 21 April 1998 (file No. 3y-6818-90), informing on the shooting in 1940 of Wincenty Wołk, prisoner of the NKVD camp at Kozelsk, along with other prisoners, had been granted before the conclusion of Katyń investigation No. 159. The Katyń investigation had not confirmed the information about Wincenty Wołk’s fate. Moreover, classified information concerning Katyń investigation No. 159 could not be made accessible to “representatives of a foreign state”.

28. On 22 October 2008 counsel for the applicants filed a cassation appeal, in which they

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

259

underlined that the lack of information about the fate of the applicants’ relatives had been the result of an inefficient investigation. The applicants held that only volumes 3, 11, 120 and 183 of the Katyń investigation files had been presented during the court session, along with the decision of 21 September 2004 on its discontinuation and one volume of supervisory proceedings. It was a publicly known fact that the 1943 excavation had uncovered the remains of 4,243 people, of whom 2,730 had been identified. Among those identified were three persons whose relatives were applicants in the proceedings. The applicants pointed out that said facts contradicted the court’s assertion that no human remains had been identified during the 1943 exhumation.

In 1991 the identification of twenty-two persons was conducted on the basis of identity tags found at the burial site; the investigators did not take any other measures to identify the excavated remains. The granting of victim status to the applicants would have allowed the identification of the remains not only on the basis of identity tags, as happened in 1991, but also with use of genetic methods. During its sitting the court should have conducted an analysis of the full text of the protocol of the 1991 exhumation works. Also, it needed to be determined why the investigators had identified the remains only of 22 persons. The applicants stressed that the execution of their relatives was indicated by the fact that the files of Katyń investigation No. 159 did not contain any information supporting the conclusion that any of the Polish officers taken from the NKVD camps had survived or died of natural causes. Furthermore, the application of state violence against the applicants’ relatives was congruent with the prosecution reply of 21 April 1998 (file No. 3y-6818-90), affirming the execution of Wincenty Wołk and other prisoners in 1940. The prosecution had not submitted any evidence that the position of the investigating authorities had subsequently changed in this regard. That considered, the applicants’ relatives should be granted victim status in the meaning of Article 42 of the Code of Criminal Proceedings.

The applicants also asserted that Katyń investigation No. 159 had been inefficient in the meaning of Article 2 and 8 of the Convention. In conclusion, the applicants asked that the decision of 21 September 2004 to discontinue Katyń investigation No. 159 – because of the death of the suspects, among other reasons – be found unlawful and that the prosecution be obligated to grant the applicants victim status and allow them to enjoy their rights under Articles 42 and 45 of the Code of Criminal Proceedings.

29. On 12 December 2008 counsel for all the applicants supplemented the cassation

appeal of 22 October 2008 by indicating that the case of Janowiec and Trybowski v.

Russia, communicated to the Government of the Russian Federation, was ongoing before the European Court of Human Rights. In that connection, the applicants asked the court to change the judgment of the Moscow District Military Court of 14 October 2008 and to reconsider the case.

30. On 29 January 2009 the Military Chamber of the Supreme Court of the Russian

Federation upheld the judgment of 14 October 2008 in its entirety. The court repeated verbatim extensive passages of the conclusions made by the Moscow District Military Court. In particular, it repeated that the prosecution answer of 21 April 1998 (file No. 3y-6818-900) informing of the execution of Wincenty Wołk

260

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka and other prisoners in 1940 had been provided before the conclusion of Katyń investigation No. 159. The results of the Katyń investigation had not corroborated the information about Wincenty Wołk’s fate. The court also affirmed that in the light of the Katyń investigation it was irrefutable that 1,803 Polish citizens had been executed.

However, the Russian authorities had managed to identify only 22 persons. In addition to an extensive repetition of the conclusions of the Moscow District Military Court, the Supreme Court held that divergences had appeared in the case materials between the personal data of the applicants and data of their murdered relatives, which prevented genetic tests to determine consanguinity with the prisoners of the NKVD camps whose remains had not been identified. Furthermore, according to the Supreme Court, it was not possible to renew Katyń investigation No. 159 since the statute of limitations of criminal responsibility applied to persons mentioned in the decision of 21 September 2004 to discontinue the investigation. Accordingly, resumption of the investigation would have contravened Article 24 (1) (3) of the Code of Criminal Proceedings. The court noted that the death of all the suspects had been the primary reason for discontinuing the Katyń investigation. Additionally, Katyń investigation No. 159 had been discontinued on “humanitarian” grounds.

B. Polish-Russian cooperation to determine the circumstances of the Katyń Crime and actions undertaken by Polish judicial organs to determine the circumstances of the Katyń Crime and obtain access to the files of investigation No. 159 conducted by the Chief Military Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation 31. On 13 April 1990 the TASS Agency published a communiqué affirming that the Soviet

NKVD had perpetrated the Katyń Crime. The relevant passage read as follows: “The disclosed archive materials give grounds for the conclusion that Beria, Merkulov and their subordinates bore direct responsibility for the crime committed in the Katyń Forest…”.

32. On 22 March 1990 a prosecutor of the District Prosecutor’s Office in Kharkov issued a decision to open an investigation concerning the mass burials in the vicinity of the Kharkov city park of persons executed in the Thirties and Forties, i.e. crimes under Articles 94, 98 and 113 of the Penal Code of the USSR. Under a decision dated 27 September 1990, the investigation concerning the execution of Polish prisoners was transferred for continuation to the Chief Military Prosecutor’s Office of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

33. On 25 December 1990 the Chief Military Prosecutor’s Office asked the General Prosecutor

of Poland for legal assistance in connection with the ongoing investigation No. 159. In response, the Polish side conveyed various evidential materials attached to letters dated 11 April 1992, 28 June 1991, 11 April 1992, 9 October 1992, 19 February 1993, May 1995, 16 August 1995.

34. In the Summer and Autumn of 1991 Polish and Russian specialists conducted

exhumation works in Kharkov, Mednoye and Katyń. The works were continued in 1994-1996 by Polish specialists, on the basis of two bilateral accords: agreement between the Government of the Republic of Poland and the Government of the Russian Federation of 22 February 1994 on graves and places of remembrance and agreement

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

261

between the Government of the Republic of Poland and the Government of Ukraine of 21 March 1994 on the protection of places of remembrance and burial of the victims of war and political repression.

35. On 14 October 1992 Russian President Boris Yeltsin disclosed that the Polish officers had

been sentenced to death by J. Stalin and the Political Bureau of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks). President Yeltsin’s envoy, Professor Rudolph Pyekhoya, Director of the State Archive Service of the Russian Federation, conveyed to the Polish authorities the so-called Dossier No.1, containing, among other things, the decision of the Soviet Politburo of 5 March 1940 concerning the execution of 25 700 Polish officers and policemen from the NKVD camps at Starobelsk, Kozelsk and Ostashkov and Poles held in prisons in the so-called Western Ukraine and the so-called Western Belarus.

36. Polish historians were granted temporary access to Russian archives, which resulted in the 4-volume publication “Katyń. Documents of a Crime”, prepared jointly with Russian archivists.

37. During an official visit to Poland on 25 August 1993, Russian President Yeltsin expressed

regret in connection with the Katyń Crime and paid tribute to the victims in front of the Katyń Cross at Powązki Cemetery in Warsaw.

38. In the mid-Nineties Poland received 93 volumes of copies of the investigation files compiled by the Chief Military Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation concerning the Katyń Crime. The materials include uncertified, frequently illegible copies of documents, which – for that reason – cannot be treated as evidence under Polish law. Furthermore, the sequence of page numbers of the respective volumes is not preserved, which may indicate that they are incomplete.

39. On 29-31 May 1995 prosecutors from Poland, Belarus, Ukraine and the Russian Federation

held a working meeting in Warsaw, during which they reviewed the progress of the investigation conducted by the Chief Military Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation into the Katyń Crime and decided on further investigative measures. The participants agreed that the Chief Military Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation would ask the prosecution authorities of Belarus and Ukraine for legal assistance to determine the circumstances of the execution in 1940 of 7 305 arrested Polish citizens. The Belarusian and Ukrainian sides committed themselves to provide the Polish side with information on the progress of implementation of these requests and to convey copies of any materials found. The Polish side undertook to grant legal assistance and convey all documents and information in its possession, relevant to the case.

40. On 27 August 2001 the Minister of Justice – General Prosecutor of Poland asked the General

Prosecutor of the Russian Federation to convey to the Institute of National Remembrance certified copies of the complete files of the investigation of the Chief Military Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation into the Katyń Crime. In a letter dated 12 November 2001, the General Prosecutor of the Russian Federation advised the General Prosecutor of the Republic of Poland that “…at present all possible investigative actions necessary to take the final decision have been performed on the territory of Russia which decision, however, cannot be taken due to the absence of preliminary investigation materials from the General

262

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka Prosecutor’s Office of Ukraine. We are constantly monitoring the arrival of any such materials…”. It was further stated in the letter that the Polish side had received “…a copy of the files of the criminal case together with all the protocols of the investigative actions and other documents…”. It was further noted that in the years 1994-1996 no investigative measures had been conducted in connection with the case, which meant that the Russian prosecution authorities were unable to convey any relevant materials to the Polish side.

41. On 17 January 2002, during an official visit to Poland, Russian President Vladimir Putin

condemned the Katyń Crime. He also announced that efforts would be made to determine a legal basis in Russian law for compensation to the Polish victims of Russian repressions.

42. On 4 August 2004, the President of the Institute of National Remembrance and prosecutors

from the Institute met at the headquarters of the Chief Military Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation with the Chief Military Prosecutor of the Russian Federation, to discuss the investigation being conducted by the Chief Military Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation into the Katyń Crime. The participants discussed the legal qualification of the Katyń Crime and the matter of access by prosecutors of the Institute of National Remembrance to the complete 168-volume file of the investigation. The Russian side disagreed with the Institute argument that the crime amounted to genocide, arguing that of the 250 thousand Polish prisoners of war held by the USSR 90 per cent had been ultimately released, so the Katyń Crime affected only 10 per cent of them. Thus, the crime was not part of a plan to exterminate the Polish national group in its entirety, or in part.

43. On 12 August 2004 the President of the Institute of National Remembrance addressed a

letter to the Chief Military Prosecutor of the Russian Federation, A. Savenkov, in which he referred to the Russian pledge to give the Polish side access to the investigation files and named the Institute of National Remembrance representatives authorized to study the files and take possession of their certified copies. It was further stated in the letter that the Institute representatives would be ready to begin their work in late August 2004. The Chief Military Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation did not respond to that letter. The Russian side also did not respond to a letter of 9 September 2004 from the Director of the Main Commission for the Prosecution of Crimes Against the Polish Nation (the Institute of National Remembrance) in which he asked for access by the Institute representatives to the files, beginning on 4 October 2004.

44. On 13 September 2004 the Institute of National Remembrance was advised by the

Embassy of the Russian Federation in Warsaw that the Chief Military Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation was planning to conclude its investigation into the Katyń Crime in September 2004, which made it impossible for the Institute prosecutors to visit Moscow.

The issue of access to the investigation files could again be addressed once the investigation was completed.

45. During a meeting of the presidents of Poland and the Russian Federation in Normandy,

at ceremonies marking the 60th anniversary of the Allied landing, the Russian president informed the Polish president that the Chief Military Prosecutor’s Office had on 21 September 2004 discontinued the investigation into the Katyń Crime.

46. On 30 September and 13 October 2004, the Institute of National Remembrance

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

263

President conveyed requests – through the Polish Justice Minister – to the Chief Military Prosecutor of the Russian Federation for access to the files and a copy of the decision on the discontinuation of the investigation; no reply was received.

47. On 30 November 2004 the Warsaw Branch of the Commission for the Investigation

of Crimes Against the Polish Nation opened an investigation into the Katyń Crime. On 2 March 2005 the Embassy of the Russian Federation in Warsaw advised that the Chief Military Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation was ready to give the Polish side access to only 67 volumes of the files, since the remaining part of the files was classified. It was further indicated that the Russian side did not see the possibility of preparing certified copies of any needed documents.

48. On 8 March 2005 the Warsaw Branch Commission for the Prosecution of Crimes Against

the Polish Nation conveyed, through the Polish Ministry of Justice, a request to the General Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation for legal assistance concerning the investigation being conducted by the Commission into the Katyń Crime, by providing copies of the complete files of the investigation conducted by the Chief Military Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation and of the decision to discontinue the investigation.

49. On 28 July 2005, the Institute of National Remembrance received the response of the

General Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation, dated 28 June 2005, for legal assistance. The Russian side indicated its willingness to provide access to 67 volumes of files of investigation No. 159 conducted by the Chief Military Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation. The letter did not explain why access would not be given to the complete files, and no position was taken on the request for copies of the Russian investigation files and a copy of the decision to discontinue investigation No. 159.

50. In a note dated 8 September 2005, the Russian Federation advised that the Institute of

National Remembrance representatives would be able to examine 67 volumes of files of the Russian investigation, but without the possibility of making copies of the provided documents. The remaining volumes of the files and the decision of 21 September 2004 to discontinue investigation No. 159 would not be provided since those materials had been classified.

51. On 9-21 October 2005, three prosecutors of the Institute of National Remembrance conducting the investigation into the Katyń Crime and the chief specialist of the Main Commission for the Prosecution of Crimes Against the Polish Nation visited Moscow at the invitation of the Chief Military Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation. The Polish visitors examined 67 volumes of files of investigation No. 159 concerning the Katyń Crime and prepared the relevant judicial documentation. Those actions did not yield significant information about the Katyń Crime. The Russian side did not consent to the copying of the supplied documents. The INR prosecutors were not given access to the complete materials of investigation No. 159, because – as the Russian side claimed – some of them were classified. The decision of September 21 2004 to discontinue investigation No. 159 was also classified and for that reason a request by the INR prosecutors to examine it was also denied.

52. On 28 February 2006, the Consular Section of the Embassy of the Republic of Poland in the

264

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka Russian Federation conveyed to the Institute of National Remembrance a copy of a letter from the Chief Military Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation, dated 18 January 2006, refusing to recognize Wincenty Wołk and other Polish officers murdered in Katyń as victims of political repression on the basis of the provisions of the Rehabilitation Law of 18 October 1991.

53. On 22 March 2006 the President of the Institute of National Remembrance sent a letter

to the Chief Military Prosecutor of the Russian Federation in which he considered the reply of the Russian side dated 18 January 2006 and presented legal arguments in support of the possibility of rehabilitation of all the victims of the Katyń Crime on the basis of Russian law, as persons subjected to political repressions. In particular, the Institute pointed out that with respect to two Polish war prisoners shot by the NKVD in 1940 documents had been preserved indicating the legal basis for their sentencing. Since the legal basis for that was known, they were eligible for rehabilitation. On 17 May 2005 the Chief Military Prosecutor’s Office replied to the above letter of the President of the Institute.

54. During talks in Moscow on 5 February 2008 between visiting Polish Premier Donald Tusk and Russian Premier Vladimir Putin, the latter described Katyń as a Stalinist crime.

55. On 7 April 2010 Premiers of Poland and Russia, Donald Tusk and Vladimir Putin, met

in Katyń on the 70th anniversary of the Katyń Crime. Referring to the Katyń Crime, Premier Putin said: “ There is no justification for these crimes. Our country has made a clear political, legal and moral assessment of the crimes of the totalitarian regime. And that assessment is not subject to any revisions.” Later that day , at a press conference of the two prime ministers, one of the journalists present asked Premier Putin if it was possible that the files of the Katyń investigation, discontinued six years prior, would be declassified. In his answer, Premier Putin underlined that the Katyń investigation had been launched at the initiative of the Russian side, that in its course 4 million documents had been collected, and that 1 million pages of documents had been handed over to the Polish side. Putin also underlined that the whole truth about the crime and its mechanisms had been exposed in the one million documents conveyed to the Polish side.

56. On 28 April 2010 the official website of the State Archive Service of the Russian Federation published the contents of the so-called Dossier No. 1 (see par. 35).

57. On 8 May 2010, during a meeting at the Kremlin, President Dmitry Medvedev conveyed

to the Speaker of the Polish Sejm, Acting President Bronisław Komorowski, 67 volumes of the Katyń investigation files.

58. On 18 June 2010 the Chief Military Prosecutor of the Russian Federation, S. Fridinskyi,

commented that domestic law and, particularly, the Code of Criminal Proceedings, prevented the Katyń investigation being resumed. According to Fridinskyi, a penal investigation could not be initiated and an ongoing investigation had to be discontinued if the statute of limitations was applicable.

C. General information concerning the fate of the relatives of the applicants, based on information contained in documents in the possession of the Russian authorities

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

265

59. The Polish Government wish to bring to the attention of the Court that in the course of Katyń investigation No.159, the Russian Federation obtained materials affirming the death of at least four Polish citizens: Wincenty Wołk, Stanisław Rodowicz, Stanisław Mielecki and Ryszard Żołędziowski, whose relatives are applicants in the instant case. In view of the same material, the death is sufficiently probable of the other Polish citizens: Stanisław Uziembło, Szymon Tomaszewski, Aleksander Wielebnowski, Stefan Erchard, Stanisław August Malewicz and Michał Adamczyk, whose relatives are also applicants in the instant case.

60. The death of Wincenty Wołk, Stanisław Rodowicz and Stanisław Mielecki was confirmed by the results of the excavation works in Katyń in 1943.

61. The death of Ryszard Żołędziowski was confirmed by the results of the Polish-Russian

excavation works near Kharkov in 1991. A piece of paper with a list of prisoners of the NKVD camp at Starobelsk was retrieved from the coat pocket of one of the Polish officers, whose remains – with clear gunshot wounds to the head – had been excavated on that occasion. The list included the name of Ryszard Żołędziowski, relative of the thirteenth applicant (copy of the list is enclosed as Attachment 1.K). Both the Polish officer whose pocket had contained the list and Ryszard Żołędziowski had been prisoners of the camp at Starobelsk. Acting on a Russian request for legal assistance, Polish experts prepared an analysis of the discovered piece of paper. The analysis affirmed that the name of Ryszard Żołędziowski appeared on the list under number 89. The expert analysis of the piece of paper was conveyed to the Russian Federation on 9 October 1992.

62. In their answer to the Court’s question 3 and in Attachment 1, the Polish Government

submit a compilation of information on the fates of all the relatives of the applicants, based on documents in possession of the authorities conducting the Katyń investigation, obtained directly by the Russian prosecution or by Polish authorities in the framework of legal assistance for the Russian Federation. In Attachment 2, the Government also enumerate certain other documents conveyed to the Russian Federation as implementation of Russian requests for legal assistance.

III. THE LAW A. Admissibility and merits of the application 63. The Polish Government hereunder present their position concerning the admissibility and merits of the application, by responding to the questions addressed to the Government of the Russian Federation.

1.

Answer to question 1

64. The Court’s first question reads as follows: Having regard in particular to the Court’s finding

on its jurisdiction ratione temporis in the Varnava and Others case (see Varnava and Others v. Turkey [GC], nos. 16064/90, 16065/90, 16066/90, 16068/90, 16069/90, 16070/90, 16071/90, 16072/90 and 16073/90, 18 September 2009, § 136-150), was the investigation into the death of the applicants’ relatives carried out by the Russian authorities, adequate and efficient as required by Article 2 of the Convention? In particular, were the applicants

266

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka given sufficient access to the materials of the investigation, including the collected evidence and procedural decisions?

65. First of all, the Polish Government wish to address the question of the Court’s competence

ratione temporis to examine the procedural limb of Article 2 of the Convention in the instant case. The Government believe that the case is admissible ratione temporis under the procedural aspect of Article 2 of the Convention for the following reasons:

66. The Government are aware that pursuant to the general principles of international law

and the case law of the Convention organs, the Russian authorities cannot be deemed liable for any acts, decisions, events or omissions that occurred before 5 May 1998, that is before the date when Russia became bound by the Convention. However, since the moment of the Convention’s ratification, all actions and omissions of a State must comply with the Convention and its Protocols and any subsequent facts fall within the Court’s jurisdiction, even if they merely constitute a continuation of an existent situation (Cf. Yagci and Sargin v. Turkey, judgment of 8 June 1995, appl. nos. 16419/90 and 16426/90, Series A no. 319-A, p.16, § 40). Hence, it should be recognized that while the historical events of 1939-1940 do not fall within the temporal jurisdiction of the Court, the application concerns legal acts which occurred in the period after the Russian Federation became bound by the Convention.

67. In its case law the Court has admitted that recognition of its temporal jurisdiction is at times

difficult when the facts relating to a case partly occurred before a given State became bound by the Convention, and partly after that happened. However, the Court noted that when applying the principle of non-retroactivity, it was willing to take into account, to a certain extent, facts that had occurred before a given State became bound by the Convention, keeping in mind their connection with subsequent events that constituted the basis of an application (Cf. Šilih v. Slovenia, judgment of April 9 2009 [GC], appl. no. 71463/01, § 141).

The Court has used that approach, inter alia, to applications based on Article 6 concerning the fairness of penal proceedings that had been initiated before the entry into force of the Convention and were continued after that date. In such situations the Court examined the fairness of proceedings in their entirety.

68. In the case of Blečić v. Croatia, the Court ascertained: “…in order to establish the Court’s temporal jurisdiction (…) it is therefore essential to identify, in each specific case, the exact time of the alleged interference. In doing so, the Court must take into account both the facts of which the applicant complains and the scope of the Convention right alleged to have been violated….” (Cf. Blečić v. Croatia, judgment of 8 March 2006 [GC], appl. no.

59532/00, §§ 72 and 82). That is why in each instance it is the facts of the case and the scope of the right that determine whether it is proper to examine the procedural aspects of the article constituting the basis of the application in the absence of a competence to examine the substantive aspect of the law (Cf. Šilih v. Slovenia, op.cit., § 93). Thus, the Court admits situations in which the examination of procedural aspects of a right is possible, despite a simultaneous absence of its temporal competency to examine the substantive aspects.

69. In its newest judgments regarding the issue of temporal jurisdiction, the Court has affirmed that the criteria established in the case of Blečić were of a general character, so in applying

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

267

these criteria the exceptional character of certain rights had to be taken into consideration, particularly – rights guaranteed under Article 2 and 3 of the Convention. The Court affirmed that both these articles were among fundamental provisions of the Convention and reflected the basic democratic values of the societies constituting the Council of Europe (Cf. Šilih v. Slovenia, op. cit., § 147).

70. The Court ascertained the existence of a procedural obligation under the Convention, in different situations, when it deemed it necessary to ensure that rights guaranteed under the Convention were not theoretical and illusory, but practical and effective (Cf . Varnava and Others v.Turkey, op.cit., § 161). Pursuant to the case law of the Court, the existence of a procedural obligation does not depend on the ultimate recognition of a State’s liability for the death of an individual. When the charge of homicide is formulated, the very fact that the authorities have been informed of the occurrence of death establishes an obligation, under Article 2, to conduct an effective official investigation. It should also be noted that the Court usually examined the issue of procedural obligations under Article 2 separately from the substantive aspect of Article 2 (Cf. Šilih v. Slovenia, op.cit., §§ 156 and 158).

71. Article 2 of the Convention places upon States a special obligation to establish an efficient

domestic system for determining the cause of death of an individual, particularly when the death occurred in connection with the actions of persons acting in official capacity (Cf. McCann and Others v. Great Britain, judgment of 27 September 1995, appl. no.

18984/91, p.49, §§ 161-63; Kaya v. Turkey, judgment of 19 February 1998, appl. no.

158/1996/777/978, Reports 1998-I, p 329, § 105 and Çakici v. Turkey [GC], judgment of 8 July 1999, no. 23657/94, § 86, ECHR 1999-IV). Furthermore, the Court underlines in its case law that if the situation which resulted in death involved State officials or State organs, the Convention places upon that State the obligation of ensuring that they bear responsibility for the instances of death that occurred in connection with their activity (Cf. mutatis mutandis, Ilhan v. Turkey [GC], ], judgment of 27 June 2000, no. 22277/93, § 63, ECHR 2000-VII).

72. The Court’s case law indicates that in many instances it treats the obligation of conducting

an efficient investigation as an obligation that is autonomous in its character and scope and is not limited only to instances in which a State might bear, directly or indirectly, responsibility for the death of an individual, that is to instances in which the State is responsible for violation of the law in its substantive aspect (Cf. Balasoiu v. Romania, application no.

37424/97, decision of 2 September 2003, Šilih v. Slovenia, op. cit., § 159).

73. Violation of the procedural obligation to conduct an efficient investigation, pursuant

to Article 2, may constitute a separate and autonomous “interference”, in the meaning of the deliberations contained in the Blečić judgment (Cf. Blečić v. Croatia, op.cit., § 88). In that sense, a procedural obligation may be treated as a completely separate obligation stemming from Article 2, binding on States even in situations when death had occurred before the entry into force of the Convention (Cf. Šilih v. Slovenia, op. cit., § 159). However, ascertainment of the existence of this separate obligation depends on the occurrence of certain premises, primarily that the scope of the Court’s jurisdiction encompasses only those acts or omissions that occurred after a given State

268

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka became bound by the Convention and that the main part of the procedural actions that have to be performed was carried out after that date (Cf. Šilih v. Slovenia, op. cit., § 161-163).

74. In such situations the Court finds that it is competent ratione temporis to examine the procedural aspect of Article 2, even though it was not competent with regard to the substantive aspect of that Article.

75. The Government believe that application of the above principles to the instant case should

lead to the conclusion that the death of the applicants’ relatives was unquestionably the result of actions by State officials and that the obligation to conduct an investigation in the given instance was autonomous in character, unconnected with the original interference with the rights of the applicants’ relatives resulting in their death. The need to conduct an independent assessment of the investigation, divorced from an assessment of the substantive aspect of Article 2 in the instant case, which due to the Court not being competent ratione temporis cannot be examined by the Court, is indicated by the fact that the investigation had been initiated proprio motu, many years after the events of 1940, and, as admitted by the Russian authorities themselves, with the basic purpose of accurately determining the circumstances of those tragic events. According to the Russian authorities, the investigation was discontinued in connection with the death of the persons involved in those events. In view of the above circumstances, the procedural obligation stemming from Article 2 of the Convention should be treated in the instant case as autonomous in character and scope. Accordingly, the fact that the Court is not competent ratione temporis to examine the substantive aspect of Article 2 of the Convention should not prevent it from assessing the fairness of the investigation. In view of the above, the Court is competent ratione temporis to examine the part of the investigation conducted after the Russian Federation became bound by the Convention, i.e. after 5 May 1998 as well as the proceedings connected with the investigation, initiated afterwards and relating to other issues, such as ascertainment of the death and rehabilitation of the victims in accordance with Russian law and the matter of access to the case files.

76. The Court asked the parties whether the investigation carried out by the Russian authorities

into the death of the applicants’ relatives had been adequate and efficient, as required by Article 2 of the Convention. In this regard, the Polish Government wish to submit the following position.

77. The obligation to protect life in accordance with Article 2 of the Convention, examined in

conjunction with the general obligation of States to ensure that every person within their jurisdiction enjoys the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Convention, requires, inter alia, in instances where loss of life resulted from the use of armed force, that an effective official investigation be conducted (Cf. i.a. Kaya v. Turkey, op.cit. § 10, Bazorkina v. Russia, judgment of 27 July 2006, appl. no. 69481/01, §§ 117-119). In order for an investigation concerning the unlawful killing of a person by State officials to be considered efficient, a number of conditions need to be met. And so, persons responsible for the investigation and its conduct must be independent of the persons who were involved in the events that resulted in death ( Cf. i.a. Güleç v. Turkey, judgment of 27 July 1998, appl. no. 21593/93, Reports 1998-IV, §§ 81-82, Őgur v. Turkey [GC], judgment of 20 May 1999, appl. no.

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

269

21954/93, §§ 92-92, ECHR 1999-III). An investigation must also be efficient in the sense that it is possible to determine in its course whether the use of force was justified in the given circumstances. The investigation must also allow the identification and punishment of the persons responsible (Cf. Őgur v. Turkey, op. cit., § 88). States are obliged to conduct investigations into the circumstances of death conscientiously, though the Convention does not imply a duty to determine the perpetrators in every instance. The obligation does not apply to the result, but to the measures that are used. All shortcomings of an investigation, restricting the possibility of determining the cause of death or the identity of the perpetrators, carry the risk that the investigation will be found as not complying with the requirements of Article 2 of the Convention (Cf. Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria, judgment of 26 February 2004, appl. nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98, § 117).

78. The Court’s case law pertaining to the obligations of a State in a situation of disappearances

(see Varnava and Others v. Turkey, op.cit., §§ 181-194) applies to the assessment of duties contingent on the respondent Government in the light of Article 2 of the Convention. In line with that case law, if the authorities have full or substantial knowledge about events concerning certain persons, as is the case with the situation of persons held in places of detention, the burden of proof as concerns a satisfactory explanation of the fates of such persons rests with the authorities. Applying these rules to the instant case, it should be pointed out that in the course of domestic proceedings the Russian authorities never questioned the fact that the relatives of the applicants had found themselves under the power of the Soviet authorities in late 1939 or early 1940. However, during the domestic proceedings the applicants received contradictory information about the fates of their relatives. And during the proceedings before the Court the Russian authorities failed to present any information concerning the fates of the applicants’ relatives that would challenge the assertion of the applicants that the persons taken prisoner had been within Soviet jurisdiction. Meanwhile, Article 2 places upon the respondent government an unceasing duty to provide information on the fates of disappeared persons (Cf. Varnava and Others v. Turkey, op.cit., § 186).

79. Considering the fact that the Polish Government have never had access to the complete

files of the investigation, they are unable to take a position concerning the charge of lack of fairness of investigation No. 159 carried out by the Chief Military Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation on the basis of the prosecution files of the investigation. However, circumstances and facts known to the Government show that the requirement of fairness of proceedings was not fulfilled in the instant case. That is indicated, inter alia, by the following circumstances.

80. First of all, during the investigation the applicants received completely contradictory

information concerning the fates of their relatives. In a letter dated 21 April 1998 the Chief Military Prosecutor’s Office advised the second applicant that her husband’s name “indeed is on the list of prisoners of the NKVD USSR camp in Kozelsk and that, together with others, he was executed in the spring of 1940....”. Similarly, in a letter of 23 November 2005 the Chief Military Prosecutor’s Office affirmed that “Wincent Wacławowicz Wołk, b. 1909, had been held at the camp in Kozelsk and was executed by organs of the NKVD USSR”. In both letters the prosecution confirmed the incarceration of the relative of the first and second applicant at the NKVD camp in Kozelsk and his execution by the NKVD

270

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka in Spring 1940. However, the judgements of the Moscow District Military Court of 14 October 2008 and of the Military Chamber of the Supreme Court of 29 January 2009, dismissing the appeal of the applicants against the decision of 21 September 2004 to discontinue Katyń investigation No. 159, affirmed that the names of W. Wołk and the other relatives of the applicants were on the lists of prisoners of the NKVD camps at Kozelsk, Ostashkov, and Starobelsk. The two courts simultaneously claimed that “no information pertaining to the further fates of the persons in question has been determined in the course of the ‘Katyń’ criminal investigation”. Comparing the content of the answers of the Chief Military Prosecutor’s Office dated 21 April and 23 November 2005 with the judgments of the Moscow District Military Court and the Military Chamber of the Supreme Court dated, respectively, 14 October 2008 and 29 January 2009, it must be ascertained that they contain contradictory information as to facts of fundamental importance for the applicants themselves and, in consequence, for the instant case. Considering that the two answers of the Chief Military Prosecutor’s Office and the courts’ judgments had to be based on evidential materials collected during the investigation, it has to be concluded that in one case the information provided is untrue.

81. In addressing her letter of 25 October 2005 to the prosecution, the first applicant was

motivated by the wish to obtain information about the future of the Katyń investigation, and to receive a copy of the decision on its discontinuation or, in the event that it had been classified, to have the decision reconsidered. The applicant, as a relative of a prisoner of the Kozelsk camp, was interested in the progress of the investigation because the investigation offered her the sole chance to find out about the fate of her lost relative. The fact that in the course of the Russian investigation the applicants received letters containing completely contradictory information as to the above facts, determination of which they had demanded, clearly indicates shortcomings in the investigation and its lack of fairness.

82. Secondly, a lack of fairness in conducting the investigation is indicated by the fact that the Russian authorities, when determining the circumstances of the 1940 crime, did not make use of the evidential materials collected independently by the Russian prosecution and those supplied by the Polish side in the framework of legal assistance requested by the Chief Prosecutor’s Office of the USSR on 25 December 1990 (see Attachments 1 and 2).

83. Above all, there are serious doubts about the categorical claim by the Russian authorities that

it was impossible to officially determine the death of the applicants’ relatives. In accordance with information possessed by the Polish Government, the Russian prosecution authorities conducting the investigation had in their possession numerous documents confirming the issuance of the death sentence on Polish nationals interned, among others, in the camps at Starobelsk, Kozelsk and Ostashkov, and the implementation of that sentence (see paras. 60 and 61, Attachments 1 and 2). Had the Russian authorities wished to do so, they could have participated in the exhumation works conducted by Polish authorities in the years 19941996 at Katyń, Kharkov and Mednoye or requested information on the results of those works. Furthermore, the Russian authorities could have asked to examine all the relatives of the Katyń Crime victims who had not been examined previously, including the second applicant, who had asked the Chief Military Prosecutor’s Office in 1998 to rehabilitate her husband. In consequence of the discontinuation by the Russian authorities of investigation

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

271

No. 159, Polish authorities initiated their own investigation in 2004, with the purpose of determining the circumstances of what had happened in 1940 (see par. 47) During their investigation, the Polish authorities managed to corroborate a number of facts concerning the fates of the prisoners from the Starobelsk, Kozelsk and Ostashkov camps and to obtain evidence that all the relatives of the applicants had been among the executed prisoners (see the answer to question 3).

84. In consequence, it can be ascertained that on the basis of the evidential materials in its possession concerning investigation No. 159, the Russian prosecution was unquestionably able to confirm the execution in 1940 of at least four relatives of the applicants: Wincenty Wołk, Stanisław Rodowicz, Stanisław Mielecki and Ryszard Żołędziowski. Furthermore, the Russian Federation could have easily obtained evidence, for example by participation in the exhumation works in Katyń, Kharkov and Mednoye in the years 1994-1996 or by asking Polish authorities for their results, which would have confirmed, with sufficient probability, the death of the other relatives of the applicants.

85. On the basis of the resolution of the Soviet Politburo of 5 March 1940, on the execution of

25 700 Polish officers, policemen and civil servants, and also on the basis of A. Shelepin’s memo to N. Khrushchev of 3 March 1959, which put the number of persons executed in 1940 by the NKVD at 21 857, including 4 421 persons from the NKVD camp at Kozelsk, 6 311 from the NKVD camp at Ostashkov and 3 820 from the NKVD camp at Starobelsk, the results of exhumation works during the first half of the Nineties conducted in Katyń, Kharkov and Mednoye, and testimony by eyewitnesses to the Katyń Crime (e.g. Mitrofan Syromyatnikov, a former Kharkov District NKVD officer), it is possible to determine unequivocally that sentences of death were carried out on at least 21 857 Polish officers, policemen and civil servants, among them – relatives of the applicants.

86. In view of the above, the method of reasoning and appraisal of evidence that made it possible

to establish in the course of investigation No. 159 that the NKVD had executed only 1 803 Polish nationals in 1940, is highly questionable. The number 1 803 was cited by the Moscow District Military Court and the Military Chamber of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, during domestic proceedings initiated by the applicants.

87. Similar doubts arise as to the reasoning and assessment of evidence that led the Russian authorities to claim that the remains of only 22 persons had been identified in the course of the Russian investigation. The Polish Government wish to underline that the exhumation works conducted in the early Nineties, during which the remains of 22 persons were identified, were of a procedural character and were conducted within the framework of investigation No. 159 of the Chief Military Prosecutor’s Office jointly by Russian and Polish prosecutors. The exhumation works in Kharkov were conducted from 25 July to 9 August 1991. Their purpose (as affirmed by the exhumation protocol) was to corroborate evidence collected during the Russian investigation and to check the testimony of witnesses concerning the execution in April and May 1940 by the Kharkov Command of the NKVD of Polish officers, held prior to their transportation to Kharkov at the POW camp in Starobelsk. Thus, the exhumation works in Kharkov had the objective of corroborating the investigation theory that section 4 of the forest-park zone of Kharkov was the burial site of the murdered Poles, prisoners of Starobelsk. Similarly, the exhumation works conducted

272

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka on 15-29 August 1991 in Mednoye were of a strictly procedural character and their goal was to check the thesis that Mednoye was the burial site of murdered Poles, prisoners of Ostashkov. The excavation works at Katyń on 20-21 November 1991 had the purpose of confirming that the remains of Polish officers from the Kozelsk camp, exhumed in 1943, were buried in the Katyń Forest. No identifications were conducted during the 1991 works in Katyń. It should be underlined that the Russian Federation authorities are aware that the exhumation works in the early Nineties were not of a comprehensive character, as affirmed by the Russian representative in the position submitted to the Court (“performed partial exhumations...” – see par. 25 of the Memorandum submitted by the Russian Federation).

88. The circumstances cited above indicate that all the exhumation works conducted in the early

Nineties were of a strictly procedural character and had the purpose of corroborating already collected evidence in support of the theory that the remains of Polish officers shot in 1940 were buried at Katyń, Kharkov and Mednoye. Thus, if those works were of a procedural character and did not have the goal of excavating and identifying the remains of all the Polish citizens buried there, the Russian authorities should have attached even greater importance to the other evidence in the case, proving objectively and irrefutably that the number of those executed exceeded 1 803 and equalled at least 21 857. The same applies to other evidence in the case, which objectively and irrefutably indicates that the number of identified victims of the Katyń Crime was much greater than 22 persons. During investigation No. 159, source documents of fundamental significance were discovered in Russian archives, including so-called NKVD dispatching lists of prisoners from the Kozelsk and Osatashkov camps, a register of the files of prisoners removed from the camp at Starobelsk and the so-called Dossier No. 1 containing, inter alia, the Soviet Politburo decision of 5 March 1940 on the extermination of the Polish prisoners (see par. 35). Those documents, together with the lists of persons identified in Katyń in 1943 provided the basis for determining the personal data of the victims of the Katyń Crime. Thus, it is assumed that the prisoners from Kozelsk, Ostashkov and Starobelsk, whose names were entered on the various dispatching lists – unless they belonged to the group of prisoners who died in the camps, were released from them, or were among the 395 survivors of the Kozelsk, Starobelsk and Ostashkov camps – were murdered in April-May 1940 by Soviet NKVD officers implementing the Politburo decision of 5 March 1940 on the extermination of the Poles. That assumption finds partial confirmation in the results of the 1943 exhumation in Katyń and in the results of the partial exhumation works conducted jointly by Polish and Russian prosecutors in 1991.

89. The Court has repeatedly stressed in its case law that the subsequent disappearance of a

person, who had previously been in the hands of the State gives grounds for the supposition, in certain circumstances, that the person concerned had lost his life. The Polish Government wish to underscore at this point that each relative of the applicants, before his disappearance in 1940, had been Russian prisoners of war. The USSR was obligated to treat every prisoner of war with a special standard care and control. If the authorities do not explain what happened to such a person, they bear the responsibility for that person’s death. In this context indirect proof is particularly important, providing grounds for the supposition – in line with the required evidential standards – that the missing person had died while in State custody (Cf. Timurtas v. Turkey, judgment of 13 June 2000, appl. no. 23531, § 82). The more time elapses without any news about a given person, that person’s death becomes more probable

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

273

(Cf. Tanis and others v. Turkey, judgment of 2 August 2005, appl. no. 65899/01, § 200). It should be underscored here that all correspondence between the applicants’ families and each of their relatives held in the NKVD camps ceased in late April or early May 1940. From that moment on the families lost all contact with their imprisoned relatives, even though in their previous correspondence those imprisoned had indicated their intention to continue corresponding with their families in occupied Poland.

90. For these reasons, taking into account the cited case law of the Court, the specified source

materials, the indicated facts concerning the whereabouts of the applicants’ relatives and the personal effects found during the excavation works, the Government submit that it should be assumed that the death of at least four Polish citizens: Wincenty Wołk, Stanisław Rodowicz, Stanisław Mielecki and Ryszard Żołędziowski – as a result of their execution by the NKVD in 1940 – is completely doubtless and as such should not be challenged in any way. Similarly in the case of the other Polish citizens: Stanisław Uziembło, Szymon Tomaszewski, Aleksander Wielebnowski, Stefan Erchard, Stanisław August Malewicz and Michał Adamczyk, whose relatives are also applicants in the instant case, the evidence collected in the course of the Russian investigation by Russian authorities has established a sufficient probability of their death.

91. Moreover, the position adopted by the Russian prosecution to the effect that all documents

pertaining to penal cases against the relatives of the applicants have been destroyed so it is impossible to determine the legal basis of the repressions against them is also doubtful.

That assertion has led to the conclusion that without determining the legal basis for the repressions there is no legal possibility of rehabilitating the applicants’ relatives. At the same time, in the course of the judicial supervision of the Russian Katyń investigation, the military prosecution and courts made use of lists of prisoners of the Kozelsk and Ostashkov camps, wherein individual “case” (дело) numbers where placed beside the names of the applicants’ relatives held in those camps. The materials conveyed by the European Court do not elucidate the content of the materials described as “cases”, whether they were transmitted in 1940 to the “troika”, and whether they constituted the basis of the punishment meted out to the prisoners, i.e. the basis of individual decisions by the “troika” concerning the fate of the victims. Furthermore, it has not been revealed whether any of the documents designated as “cases” were destroyed, whether any of them have been preserved and if so – if they were incorporated in the materials of investigation No. 159. The absence of the relevant information by the Russian side casts doubt on the efficiency of the Russian investigation and of its judicial supervision.

92. Furthermore, it should be underscored that the Chief Military Prosecutor’s Office and

Russian courts made the legal rehabilitation of the applicants’ relatives dependent on the determination of the legal basis for imposing the penalties against them. However, the Russian authorities neither determined the content of the “cases” identified next to the names of the applicants’ murdered relatives, nor took a position regarding the crucial decision of the Soviet Politburo of 5 March 1940. The decision clearly refers to the application of “special procedures” and not to judicial penal proceedings. In this regard, too, the Russian authorities, prominently including the Chief Military Prosecutor’s Office, are guilty of omission and, in consequence, of inefficiency.

274

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka

93. Thirdly, shortcomings in the work of the Russian prosecution are also indicated by the

fact that after 1995 it stopped collecting evidence pertaining to the applicants’ relatives.

The Russian Federation has confirmed in its position submitted to the Court (e.g. par. 31 of the Memorandum of the Russian Federation) that no efforts were made in the years 1995-2004 to independently collect evidence. Meanwhile, in 1998 – that is several years before the discontinuation of the Russian investigation – the second applicant, widow of Wincenty Wołk, conveyed to the Russian authorities a motion for the legal rehabilitation of her husband. In 1998 the Russian prosecution responded to the second applicant, making rehabilitation contingent on the ending of investigation No. 159. At the same time, the prosecution did not conduct an examination of the widow. Thus, the prosecution relinquished the possibility of collecting all available information about the fate of the second applicant’s husband.

94. The prosecution conducting the investigation did not move to examine the second applicant

residing in Poland and did not ask Polish authorities to examine her. In this connection it should be noted that after the discontinuation of the Russian investigation, the second applicant was examined in February 2005 by Polish prosecutors in the framework of the Polish Katyń investigation launched in November 2004. On that occasion the second applicant confirmed that she was being examined for the first time with regard to the Katyń Crime. Similar statements were made in the course of the Polish investigation by other applicants in the instant case.

95. In consequence, it should be emphasized that in the years 1995-2004 the Russian

Federation refrained from independently collecting evidence from relatives of the victims of the Katyń Crime, who were directly approaching the Russian authorities. The absence of independent acquisition of evidence by the Russian Federation in the years 1995-2004 indicates the inefficiency of the Russian Katyń investigation. That particular instance of inefficiency of the Russian Katyń investigation prevented the applicants from effecting the legal rehabilitation of their relatives.

96. Fourthly, a lack of fairness of the investigation is indicated by the fact that the applicants

were barred from participating in proceedings and were denied victim status on the basis of Russian penal law (the matter is detailed in the response to question 5, paras. 127 – 147).

As mentioned above, in 1998 the second applicant filed a motion with the prosecution conducting investigation No. 159 for the rehabilitation of her husband. The applicant expressed interest in the ongoing proceedings as relative of a victim whose death was the subject of investigation No. 159. The applicant demanded information that would permit her husband’s rehabilitation. The prosecution conducting the investigation explained that rehabilitation would only be possible after the conclusion of the penal proceedings. Despite the fact that in demanding information about the investigation the applicant, as relative of the victim, was trying to avail herself of her judicial rights under Article 42 of the Code of Criminal Proceedings, the prosecution refused to grant her victim status and, subsequently, failed to give her official notification that investigation No. 159 had been discontinued on 21 September 2004. In consequence, the applicant sent a letter to the prosecution on 25 October 2005 asking for information about the status of the Katyń investigation, a copy of the decision on its discontinuation, and, in event of the decision being classified,

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

275

for reconsideration of the matter. The Chief Military Prosecutor’s Office responded in a letter dated 23 November 2005. Prosecution informed the applicant that the decision to discontinue the Katyń investigation contained state secrets and hence the document was not subject to publication and could not be supplied to the Polish side. The applicant, despite fulfilling all the requirements of Article 42 of the Code of Criminal Proceedings was denied victim status in the penal proceedings and, in consequence, was refused access to the files of the concluded proceedings. Further appeals by the applicant proved unsuccessful.

97. The above facts unequivocally indicate that the prosecution has never formally

recognized the applicants’ status as victims in the case. That was conclusively affirmed by the judgment issued on 14 October 2008 by the Moscow District Military Court.

The denial of victim status prevented the applicants from participating in the ongoing proceedings and , in particular, from obtaining access to the investigation files after its discontinuation. Thus, the Russian authorities prevented the applicants from acquainting themselves with the collected evidence which, as indicated in letters received earlier from the prosecution (e.g. letter of 1998), contained documents pertaining to the fates of the applicants’ relatives. The applicants never had any opportunity to verify the assertion contained in the Moscow District Military Court judgment of 14 October 2008 that “the Katyń investigation had not established the fate of the said individuals” – i.e. the applicants’ relatives. The applicants were denied the possibility of acquainting themselves with the complete investigation materials and of corroborating that the prosecution had not determined the further fates of their relatives. The lack of access to investigation materials and unsuccessful appeals against prosecution decisions adversely affected the applicants’ efforts to obtain the victims’ rehabilitation in national rehabilitation proceedings (for more – see the answer to question 6).

98. The Government of Poland wish to point out that the problem of denial of victim status in the course of the Russian Katyń investigation No. 159 no only concerns the applicants in the instant case but also at least several hundred other persons, relatives of the Katyń Crime victims, whose testimony was conveyed to the Russian Federation as legal assistance by the Polish authorities in the framework of the Russian Katyń investigation No. 159. As an example, the Government advise that on 11 April 1991 alone the Russian Federation received protocols of the testimony of 57 witnesses – relatives of the Kozelsk camp prisoners, testimony protocols of 34 witnesses – relatives of prisoners of the Starobelsk camps and testimony protocols of 70 witnesses – relatives of prisoners of the Ostashkov camp.

99. The conduct of the prosecution authorities, described above, should be evaluated in the

light of the case law of the Court. The Court has asserted that proceedings conducted by State authorities, particularly those concerned with the determination of the circumstances of death, need to be subjected to control by public opinion. The required level of public control may differ, depending on the case. However, in all instances, relatives of the victims have to be involved in such procedures to a degree essential to secure their legitimate interests. Relatives have to be assured the possibility of active participation in proceedings, of submitting evidential motions or other ways of influencing the proceedings (Cf., Rajkowska v. Poland, appl. no. 37393/02, decision of 27 November 2007). The Court found

276

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka that public opinion control had not been ensured e.g. in instances when the victim’s father was not informed of refusal to prosecute, or when the victim’s family was not given access to prosecution and court files (Cf. i.a. Güleç v. Turkey, op. cit., § 82; Öĝur v. Turkey, op. cit., § 92; Gül v. Turkey, judgment of 14 December 2000, appl. no. 22676/93, § 93). In conclusion, it should be stated that failure to ensure the participation of applicants in ongoing proceedings should be treated as one of the elements affirming violation of the principle of fairness of proceedings guaranteed under Article 2 of the Convention.

100. Obviously, the period of time that elapses between an event and the investigation might affect the possibility of collecting evidence and indicting all the presumed perpetrators.

However, even if obstacles exist that hinder the progress of an investigation, a proper attitude on the part of the authorities is of key importance for the preservation of public confidence that the authorities are following the rule of law. The authorities need to avoid the impression that they are involved in or tolerate unlawful actions (see Varnava and Others v. Turkey, op. cit. 191).

101. Due to the amount of time that had elapsed since the events that were the subject of the

investigation, the applicants were not seeking conviction of the perpetrators, but wanted to determine beyond any doubt the fate of their relatives and their place of burial. In this situation, the fact that they received contradictory information during the investigation regarding the fate of their relatives, that the prosecution failed to properly investigate the available evidence and that they were barred from participation in proceedings, only stimulated their interest in establishing the circumstances of death of their relatives. In this context, the Polish Government wish to refer to the case law of the Court, pursuant to which States are obligated to ensure adequate and efficient investigations into the circumstances of death, even though the Convention does not obligate them in every instance to identify the perpetrators. All shortcomings of an investigation that diminish the possibility of determining the causes of death or the identity of the perpetrators pose the risk that the investigation will be found incompatible with the requirements of Article 2 of the Convention (see Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria, op. cit., § 117).

102. In the light of the above, the Government wish to submit, first of all, that the Court is

competent ratione temporis to examine the procedural aspect of Article 2 of the Convention in the instant case and, secondly, that the investigation into the death of the applicants’ relatives did not meet the criteria of adequacy and efficiency, as required by Article 2 of the Convention. In consequence, there occurred a violation of Article 2 of the Convention in the procedural aspect.

2.

Answer to question 2

103. The Government of Poland are unable to produce a copy of the decision of the Chief Military Prosecutor’s Office to discontinue criminal proceedings No. 159 in the Katyń case, dated 21 September 2004, since the Government have never had access to the said document.

3.

Answer to question 3

104. In the third question the Court asked the parties to produce documents concerning the applicants’ relatives, such as the relevant entries in the NKVD lists and protocols of

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

277

the 1943 excavations in the part concerning the identification of three of the applicants’ relatives. In Attachment 1 the Government of Poland submit a compilation of information about the fates of all the relatives of the applicants, based on documents in possession of the authorities conducting the Katyń investigation, obtained directly by the Russian prosecution or provided by Polish authorities in the framework of legal assistance for the Russian Federation. In Attachment 2 the Government of Poland present a listing of certain other documents conveyed to the Russian Federation as part of legal assistance in response to Russian request.

105. Since in the course of the instant case the Russian Federation – in its position presented to the Court (see paragraphs 45-48 of the Memorandum of the Russian Federation) – questioned the credibility of the 1943 excavation works regarding the identification of Wincenty Wołk, Stanisław Rodowicz and Stanisław Mielecki, the Government of Poland wish to present a number of Polish documents affirming the credibility of the results of the excavation works in 1943. The said Polish documents include: 1) documents drawn up by Poles present in the Katyń Forest in 1943 (Attachment 3); 2) documents drawn up by the Polish Red Cross (PRC), which conducted practically the entire excavation works in the Katyń Forest in 1943 (Attachment 4); 3) documents drawn up by Polish justice authorities after 1945.

106. The Polish Government wish to emphasize that the content of all the above Polish

documents is known to the Russian Federation, since they were conveyed to the Russian Federation in the years 1991-1995 in fulfilment of a Russian request for legal assistance in the framework of the Russian Katyń investigation No. 159.

107. To begin with on 11 April 1943 the first group of several Poles from the territory of the

General Government arrived at the site of the Katyń Crime, at the behest of the Germans.

The members of the Polish group were shown the remains of Polish officers excavated from mass graves. The Polish group included, among others, dr Edmund Seyfried. He submitted reports on the visit to the Katyń Forest to the Underground State and the Main Relief Council (Polish humanitarian organization).

108. In 1945 the Prosecutor’s Office of the Special Penal Court in Krakow opened an investigation

against one of the persons who had taken part in the excavation works in Katyń in 1943 for supposedly acting in detriment of the Polish State. The above-mentioned dr Edmund Seyfried was examined as a witness in the course of that investigation. He appended the protocol of his testimony given to a prosecutor with an exact copy of the report on his visit to Katyń Forest submitted to the Underground State on 13 April 1943 (Attachment 3).

109. In the report dr Edmund Seyfried described the excavation and post-mortem examination of

a Polish officer he had selected at random, who was found to have personal correspondence from occupied Poland. Dr Seyfried also mentioned the names of 31 other exhumed persons.

The protocol of the 1945 examination of dr Edmund Seyfried, together with his report on the visit to the Katyń Forest, was conveyed to the Russian Federation on 28 June 1991, in fulfilment of a Russian request for legal assistance.

110. Furthermore, the final report of the PRC, prepared in June 1943 by PRC Secretary General

278

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka Kazimierz Skarżyński (Attachment 4), is a key document affirming the credibility of the 1943 excavation works in Katyń. The report includes, among others, a report on Kazimierz Skarżyński’s visit to Katyń (see part 1 of the Report) and a report on the excavation works conducted by the PRC Technical Commission (see part 2 point C of the Report).

111. PRC Secretary General Kazimierz Skarżyński and other PRC representatives arrived at the site of the Katyń Crime on 15 Aril 1943. On 18 April 1943 Kazimierz Skarżyński reported to the PCK management on his visit to the Katyń Forest. On the basis of that report the Main Council of the PRC asked the German authorities to allow the PRC to conduct excavation works in the Katyń Forest. On 22 April 1943 a representative of the General Government expressed verbal agreement to this. Up to that moment the remains of some 300 Polish officers had been excavated in the Katyń Forest, of whom some 150 were identified.

112. In late April 1943 the PRC representatives present in Katyń were reinforced by members

of the so-called PRC Technical Commission. It included other PRC officers, doctors, lab technicians, nurses and manual workers. The Technical Commission performed almost all the excavation works in Katyń. As noted above, the Commission’s report on its works in Katyń Forest in 1943 constitutes a part of the final PRC report submitted by Kazimierz Skarżyński.

113. In accordance with the report of the PRC Technical Commission, between 15 April and 7

June 1943 members of the PRC conducted the excavations and post-mortems on a total of 4 243 bodies. Various documents and belongings were found with the bodies, permitting the individual identification of a large majority of the victims.

114. The identification of the bodies was conducted on the basis of documents and belongings

found on the excavated remains. Primary importance was attached to documents identifying the victim’s name – such as identity tags, ID cards, call-up letters, service cards and others.

The perusal of the documents was conducted by 3 Germans and 2 or 3 Poles, members of the PRC Technical Commission.

115. According to the Commission the exhumation lists were prepared in the following way: “The lists typed in German by the Germans could not be checked by the [PRC Technical] Commission against the rough copy because it did not have access to it. That system of work lasted from No. 0421 – 0794 in the presence of Mr Ludwik Rojkiewicz.

The identification of Nos. 0795-03900 was conducted in the presence of Commission members Cypryjak Stefan, Jaworowski Gracjan and Mikołajczyk Jan. The mode of work by those mentioned above was almost identical, with the difference that they compiled the lists in the Polish language and despatched, whenever possible, to the Main Board of the PRC. Mr Wodzinowski Jerzy was present for Nos. 03900 to 04243, maintaining the same form of work. The identification of the bodies Nos. 1-112 and from 01 to 0420 before the arrival of the PRC Commission was performed exclusively by the Germans”.

116. The names of Wincenty Wołk, Stanisław Rodowicz and Stanisław Mielecki are entered, respectively, under numbers 2564, 970 and 3425, on the PRC list of persons exhumed in 1943 and on the German exhumation list published in Amtliches Material zum Massenmord von KATYŃ. It should be noted that these numbers fall within the interval of numbers

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

279

from 0795 to 03900 mentioned in the above-cited excerpt of the report of the PRC Technical Commission. Thus, the cited passage proves the authenticity and reliability of the identification in 1943 of the remains of Wincenty Wołk, Stanisław Rodowicz and Stanisław Mielecki. The authenticity and reliability of the data entered in the interval of numbers from 0795 to 03900 is affirmed by the participation in the process of three members of the Commission and the preparation of the relevant part of the list also in Polish and its despatch to the Main Board of the PRC.

117. Kazimierz Skarżyński’s final PRC report in the form of a brochure was sent to the Russian Federation on 11 April 1991 in fulfilment of a Russian request for legal assistance within the framework of investigation No. 159. Simultaneously, the Polish authorities conveyed to the Russian Federation a copy of the PRC list of persons exhumed in the Katyń Forest in 1943, copies of the PRC personal files relating to the list and containing information about the personal effects used to make the identifications.

118. Lastly, the credibility of the 1943 exhumation works is evidenced by documents drawn up

by Polish justice authorities after 1945. These are judicial motions and the relevant court rulings affirming the death of Polish officers, policemen and civil servants taken prisoner by Soviet forces after 17 September 1939.

119. In Attachment 1 the Polish Government refers to the court ruling ascertaining the death

of Stanisław Mielecki, father of the twelfth applicant (text of the ruling in Attachment 1.I).

The ruling of the Municipal Court in Aleksandrów Kujawski of 16 January 1947 identified the time and place of death of the of the twelfth applicant’s father as 30 April 1943 at Kozie Gory near Smolensk. This means that the time and place of death was set, at the latest, as the moment and site of the exhumation works conducted by the PRC in the Katyń Forest.

120. The documents conveyed by the European Court in the instant case indicate that the Chief

Military Prosecutor’s Office and Russian courts did not consider the cited ruling of the Municipal Court in Aleksandrów Kujawski of 16 January 1947 ascertaining the death of the twelfth applicant’s father, even though it had been conveyed to the Russian Federation on 11 April 1991, in fulfilment of a Russian request for legal assistance. Moreover, in the years 1991-1995 the Polish Government conveyed to the Russian Federation copies of several dozen other motions for ascertainment of death of Polish officers, policemen and civil servants, victims of the Katyń Crime, along with the testimony of their next of kin.

121. In consequence, considering the content of the documents drawn up by Poles who were in

Katyń, members of the PRC and Polish justice authorities after 1945, the credibility of the exhumation works at the Katyń Forest in 1943 should not be questioned in the course of the instant proceedings before the Court.

4.

Answer to question 4

122. In the fourth question the Court asked the parties if, having regard to the applicants’

attempts to obtain information about their disappeared relatives and the way in which the Russian authorities responded to those enquiries, the applicants had been subjected to the treatment of the kind proscribed by Article 3 of the Convention (see, for example, Gongadze v. Ukraine, no. 34056/02, § 184-186, ECHR 2005‑XI)?

280

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka

123. In accordance with the Court’s case law, in order to ascertain that a victim’s relative was

treated in violation of Article 3 of the Convention, it is necessary to determine the existence of special factors which give the suffering of the relative 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 (Cf. Gongadze v. Ukraine, op. cit. § 184).

124. With a view to the principles stemming from the Court’s case law, it should be pointed out

that in the instant case the persons who were taken prisoner, held and, ultimately, murdered

by Soviet authorities were the next of kin of the applicants. Over many years, for political reasons, the authorities denied access to all official information about the fates of persons taken prisoner in late 1939. In 1990 the Soviet authorities initiated ex officio proceedings aimed at investigating the events in spring 1940 that resulted in the execution of at least 22 thousand prisoners of war. The applicants, as relatives of the victims, made attempts to obtain information about the ongoing proceedings and to gain access to the investigation materials. However, their efforts were completely ineffective. The absence of an efficient and fair investigation, which – let it be emphasized – had been initiated ex officio by the authorities, deprived the applicants of the possibility of pursuing the legal measures for the rehabilitation of their relatives existent in the framework of the Russian judicial system.

First of all, it should be underlined that in the course of the proceedings the applicants received contradictory information about the fate of their relatives. Their treatment by the authorities, prevention of access to investigation materials and the ascertainment by the court that in the absence of grounds for rehabilitation the prosecution should refer the case to a court but only upon the motion of the interested injured party – which in the instant case meant the applicants’ relatives slain in 1940 (see par. 20) – instilled in the applicants a sense of constant uncertainty and stress, and made them totally dependent on the actions of the authorities seeking to humiliate them.

125. In its case law the Court has repeatedly highlighted the exceptional situation of the relatives

of disappeared persons. The Court has noted that their situation characterized by constant uncertainty resulting, inter alia, from the impunity of the perpetrators, being the result of an inefficient investigation or even deliberate concealment and obfuscation of the events that took place. The situation is often drawn out over time, prolonging the torment of the victims’ relatives. The subsequent failure to account for the whereabouts and fate of the missing person gives rise to a continuing situation. Thus, the procedural obligation on the part of the State to determine the fate of the missing person will potentially persist as long as the fate of that person is unaccounted for (Cf. Varnava and Others v. Turkey, op. cit., § 148).

126. In the light of the above, the Government believe that the treatment of the applicants by the

Russian authorities in the course of domestic proceedings constituted a violation of Article 3 of the Convention.

5.

Answer to question 5

127. In question 5 the Court asked whether it was compatible with Article 6 of the Convention

that the applicants were denied the status of victims in the criminal proceedings (case No. 159) and/or access to the documents concerning the investigation into the death of their relatives?

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

281

128. The Government hold that Article 6 of the Convention is applicable in the instant case

under its civil head. At the same time the Government are of the opinion that a violation of the article occurred in the instant case, since the conduct of the Russian authorities was not compatible with the requirements of Article 6.

129. The applicants, when attempting to become parties to the proceedings conducted in

Russia, were aware how much time had elapsed since the events that were the object of the investigation by the Russian authorities, and for that reason were not seeking conviction of the perpetrators, but rather determination of the circumstances of death of their relatives.

The applicants attempted, in domestic proceedings, to avail themselves of the judicial rights guaranteed under Russian law to obtain credible, true and official information concerning the death of their relatives, who had been within the jurisdiction of the Soviet State at the time, in order to subsequently seek their rehabilitation. Though the Convention does not directly guarantee the right to various forms of participation in proceedings, its guarantees do apply to persons, who have the right of participating in proceedings under national law (Cf. i.a Kuśmierek v. Poland, judgment of 21 September 2004, appl. no. 10675/02, § 4849). With regard to crime victims or their relatives, Article 6 § 1 may be applicable to those criminal proceedings in which the civil aspect is so closely connected with the criminal aspect that the outcome of the criminal proceedings might have decisive impact on civil claims.

Furthermore, pursuant to the Court’s case law, even if criminal proceedings are conclusive only with respect to a criminal indictment, the application of Article 6 of the Convention is determined by close linkage of the civil component to the criminal component, that is by criminal proceedings affecting the civil component (Cf. i.a. Calvelli and Ciglio v. Italy, judgment of 17 January 2002, appl. no. 32967/96, § 62).

130. As noted above, the scope of application of Article 6 is determined by the fact that the

Convention does not grant the right of “private revenge” or actio popularis. Accordingly, the Convention does not guarantee the autonomous right to demand the prosecution and punishment of third persons for committed crimes. Hence, that right must be inseparably linked to the right of a victim to initiate civil proceedings, even if the goal of such proceedings consists in a symbolic mitigation of a wrong suffered, or the protection of such a right as the right to respect for one’s good name (Cf. Golder v. Great Britain, judgment of 21 February 1975, appl. no. 4451/70, Series A no. 18, p.13, § 27; Helmers v. Sweden, judgment of 29 October 1991, appl. no. 11826/85, p. 14, § 27; and Tolstoy Miloslavsky v. Great Britain, judgment of 13 July 1995, appl. no. 18139/91, series A no. 316-B, p. 78, § 58).

131. The Government note that pursuant to the case law of the Court the concept of “civil rights

and duties” is autonomous, though in this regard the legislation of the given country is not without significance. That is why an answer to the question whether a given right should be treated as a civil right in the understanding of the Convention must not only take into account the legal classification of that right, but also its content and its consequences in the light of the national law of the given country. At the same time, it is equally important that the Court recognizes that in performing its supervisory role it needs to take into consideration the subject matter and goals of the Convention (Cf. Perez v. France, judgment of 12 February 2004, appl. no. 47287/99, § 57).

132. In its judgments wherein the Court classified – in the light of the Convention – the status of

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka

282

specific persons taking part in national judicial proceedings, it highlighted the importance of ensuring crime victims their rights and due position in criminal proceedings. Recognizing the fundamental differences in the requirements applied under Article 6 to a fair civil and criminal trial, the Court ascertained, however, that such distinctions must not result in ignoring the difficult situation of the victims or in diminishment of their rights (Cf. Perez v. France, op. cit., § 72). For that reason, in the light of the subject matter and goals of the Convention, refusal to fulfil the guarantees contained in Article 6 must be exceptional (Cf. Pellegrin v. France [GC], judgment of 8 December 1999, no. 28541/95, § 64, ECHR 1999VIII). For these reasons the Court found that proceedings conducted by State authorities need to be subjected to public opinion control. Furthermore, in all cases, relatives of the victims have to be involved to a degree necessary to ensure their legitimate interests (Cf. i.a.

Güleç v. Turkey, op. cit., § 82; Öĝur v. Turkey, op. cit. § 92; Gül v. Turkey, op. cit., §93).

133. Guaranteeing a proper level of protection for crime victims is a matter of constant concern not only for the Court but also for the Committee of Ministers. Recommendation no. R (85) 11 on the position of the victim in the framework of criminal law and procedure, adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 28 June 1985, stipulates:

(…)

5. A discretionary decision whether to prosecute the offender should not be taken without due consideration of the question of compensation of the victim, including any serious effort made to that end by the offender; 6. The victim should be informed of the final decision concerning prosecution, unless he indicates that he does not want this information; 7. The victim should have the right to ask for a review by a competent authority of a decision not to prosecute, or the right to institute private proceedings (…).

134. Recommendation no. R (87) 21 on assistance to victims and the prevention of victimization, adopted by the Committee of Ministers, recommends that States take the following measures: “…

4. ensure that victims and their families, especially those who are most vulnerable, receive in particular:...

– assistance during the criminal process, with due respect to the defence; …”

135. Furthermore, recommendation Rec(2000)19 on the role of public prosecution in the criminal justice system provides that: “…

Interested parties of recognized or identifiable status, in particular victims, should be able to challenge decisions of public prosecutors not to prosecute; such a challenge may be made, where appropriate after an hierarchical review, either by way of judicial review, or by authorizing parties to engage private prosecution.”

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

283

136. Considering the instant case against the background of international standards of protection

of crime victims, the Government wish to point out that the presented facts irrefutably indicate that the prosecution never recognized the applicants’ status of victims in the proceedings. This was conclusively affirmed in the judgment issued on 14 October 2008 by the Moscow District Military Court. The denial of victim status prevented the applicants from participating in the ongoing proceedings and, in particular, from obtaining access to the investigation files after its discontinuation. In that way the Russian authorities prevented the applicants from acquainting themselves with the collected evidence among which, as indicated in earlier letters received by the applicants from the prosecution (e.g. letter of 1998), were documents pertaining to the fate of the applicants’ relatives. The applicants were never given the opportunity to corroborate the assertion made in the judgment of the Moscow District Military Court of 14 October 2008 that “the Katyń investigation had not established the fate of the said individuals”. The applicants did not have the possibility of acquainting themselves with the complete investigation materials and of verifying that the prosecution had not obtained information about the further fates of their relatives. The lack of access to the investigation materials and the unsuccessful appeals against the prosecution decisions adversely affected the applicants efforts to obtain rehabilitation of the victims in domestic rehabilitation proceedings.

137. The judicial submissions made by the applicants from 1998 onwards should have been treated as motions for the granting of victim status, since they had the goal of obtaining information essential for subsequent rehabilitation of the victims. Even though the Russian prosecution never formally took a position regarding those motions made by the applicants and their counsel, the official information conveyed in the letter of the Chief Military Prosecutor’s Office of 23 November 2005 that the text of the decision to discontinue the Katyń investigation contained state secrets – which meant that under chapter 6 of the Law on State Secrets and Article 2 of the European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters the document was not subject to publication and could not be conveyed to the Polish side – constituted per facta concludentia the granting of victim status. Furthermore, standards of fairness of proceedings obligated the Russian authorities to grant the applicants full information on their judicial rights. The right to information is an integral element of a fair trial, particularly in a situation when the proceedings are conducted, as in the instant case, outside the State of which the applicants are citizens. The overall conduct of the prosecution testifies to a lack of willingness to inform the applicants about their judicial rights. Even if the Russian prosecution did not treat the applicants’ letters as formal motions for the granting of victim status, it should have provided them with accurate information on the formalities required for them to obtain such status.

138. The failure to inform the applicants of their judicial rights, despite the motions submitted by them, and the formal refusal to acquaint them with the investigation materials, prevented their active participation in proceedings, particularly in view of the impact of the result of investigation No. 159 had on the possibility of conducting rehabilitation proceedings.

139. 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. As demonstrated above, the applicants attempted to avail themselves in domestic

284

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka 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 Soviet State. Documents conveyed to the applicants in the course of domestic 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 belongings of a deceased person, is of enormous emotional importance to relatives.

Contradictory information as to whether the authorities had documents confirming the death of the relatives additionally reinforced the applicants’ motivation.

140. The requirement of access to case files stems from the principle of adversary character of

the trial contained in Article 6 of the Convention. It means that both the prosecution and the defense must have the possibility of examining and commenting on the positions and evidence presented by the other side. The very wording of Article 6 – and particularly the autonomous meaning given to the concept of “case” in the understanding of the Convention – indicates that this provision finds partial application to preparatory proceedings (Cf. Imbrioscia v. Switzerland, judgment of 24 November 1993, appl. no. 13972/88, series A no. 275, p. 13, § 36, Rajkowska v. Poland, op. cit.) and is certain to have application in rehabilitation proceedings. The Court allows in its case law that the guarantees of Article 6 be applied to relatives of the victim also in preparatory proceedings, provided that they are pursuing rights of a civil character (Cf. Perez v. France, op. cit., § 66).

141. The failure to observe the principles of adversary trial and equality of the parties in domestic proceedings, guaranteed by Russian law, both of which constitute a crucial component of fair civil proceedings in accordance with Article 6 of the Convention, and, in consequence, the barring of the applicants’ participation in proceedings despite a legal basis for such participation, may be interpreted as intended to prevent their assessment whether the proceedings conducted by the Russian authorities were fair. And that fairness may well be questioned in the light of the facts cited above.

142. In the years 1998-2008 the applicants submitted numerous motions, initially aimed at

obtaining information about the ongoing investigation No. 159 and then at effecting their relatives’ rehabilitation. The original information supplied in 1998 by the Chief prosecutor’s Office indicated that the motion for rehabilitation of the executed persons would be considered only upon conclusion of the penal investigation in the case.

143. However, after the investigation was discontinued, which fact was not officially

communicated to the applicants, the Chief Military Prosecutor’s Office announced on 18 January 2006 that there were no grounds for the rehabilitation of Wincenty Wołk and

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

285

the other Polish citizens. The prosecution held that Article 3 “b” [б] of the Rehabilitation Law, invoked by the Consular Section of the Polish Embassy in Moscow when it applied for information on behalf of the applicants applied to the rehabilitation of persons subjected to penal repressions for political reasons. The prosecution opined that since the Katyń investigation No. 159 had not determined which provisions of the 1926 Criminal Code had served as the basis for the repressions against Wincenty Wołk and the other Polish officers, and also because the documents pertaining to the case had been destroyed, there were no grounds for their rehabilitation.

144. The motions for rehabilitation of the victims were submitted, inter alia, on 21 January 2007

by Ms Ojcumiła Wołk and on 21 February 2008 by counsels for all the applicants.

145. Both motions were rejected, respectively, on 12 February 2007 (see par.13) and 13 March

2008 (see par. 15). In both instances the prosecution referred to a lack of information about penal cases against the victims and of any other information about repressions being applied against them which, according to the prosecution, prevented the issuance of a decision on rehabilitation on the basis of the Rehabilitation Law.

146. The applicants made a series of unsuccessful appeals (on 4 May 2008, 4 August 2008,

24 October 2008 and 5 November 2008), in which they pointed out that the prosecution replies to their formal motions did not have the proscribed judicial form, and presented substantive arguments in support of their motions. However, those motions were dismissed in a mechanical manner and their addressees – the prosecution and courts – justified their actions with the same arguments. The Khamovnicheskiy District Court in Moscow found that a complaint against the prosecution’s refusal to issue a decision on rehabilitation could only be lodged by a person whose rights had been violated. The court held that in regard to the motions made by the applicants that should be the persons who had disappeared in 1940 (see par. 17). In its judgment of 24 October 2008 that court further held that while rehabilitation certificates could be handed over to the victims’ relatives, in the event of a lack of grounds for rehabilitation the prosecution should refer the case to a court, but only upon a motion of the interested injured party (see par. 20).

147. In its case law the Court has stated that its role under the Convention consists in determining

whether proceedings against which a complaint is lodged have been, on the whole, fair (Cf. i.a. García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], judgment of 21 January 1999, appl. no. 30544/96, §§ 28-29).

Regarding the circumstances of the instant case, with particular reference to all the cited examples of nonfeasance by the Russian authorities and the rejection of the applicants’ motions for the rehabilitation of their relatives, it should be ascertained that the proceedings conducted by the Russian authorities did not on the whole meet the requirements laid down in Article 6 of the Convention.

2.

Answer to question 6

148. In question 6 the Court asked if in view of the refusal to grant the applicants victim status

in criminal proceedings (case No. 159) and/or give them access to documents pertaining to the investigation into the death of their relatives, the applicants had had an effective domestic remedy for their grievances at their disposal, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?

286

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka

149. Article 13 of the Convention guarantees an effective remedy before a national authority

to everyone whose rights and freedoms set forth in the Convention are violated, regardless of the form of that remedy in the national legal order. This means that everyone who makes a justified claim for being recognized as a victim of violation of his rights guaranteed by the Convention should have at his disposal a remedy ensuring that the case is examined (to ascertain whether a violation of rights took place) and that any injury is compensated (Cf. Lithgow v. Great Britain, judgment of 8 July 1986, appl. nos. 9006/80; 9262/81; 9263/81; 9265/81; 9266/81; 9313/81; 9405/81, § 205). In this regard, States are free to choose the mode of fulfilling the resultant obligations. The scope of obligations ensuing from Article 13 differs, depending on the right, the violation of which has been alleged. However, the remedy must be legally and practically effective (Cf. Melnik v. Ukraine, judgment of 28 March 2006, appl. no. 72286/01, § 114).

150. It should be recalled that in accordance with the Court’s established case law, in the

event of a justified claim that a victim had been unlawfully deprived of life by persons acting in an official capacity, the concept of effective remedy in the meaning of Article 13 encompasses compensation as well as an adequate and effective investigation, leading to the determination and punishment of the perpetrators, with relatives ensured effective participation in the investigation. In this regard, in cases concerning the right to life, requirements under Article 13 are broader than the procedural obligation on the basis of Article 2 (Cf. Kaya v. Turkey, op.cit., § 107). Furthermore, the practical effectiveness of the remedy implies that its application cannot be hindered without justification by actions or omissions of State authorities (Cf. Aksoy v. Turkey, judgment of 18 December 1996, Reports 1996-VI, p. 2286, § 95; and Aydin v. Turkey, judgment of 25 September 1997, Reports 1997-VI, pp. 1895-96, § 103).

151. Under the system of Russian law, victims of unlawful or criminal acts attributable to the State or persons acting in an official capacity, may demand the protection of their rights either in civil or penal proceedings. In the context of the instant case, the Government wish to recall that the Court found in previously adjudicated cases that the Russian Government had not presented any practical examples confirming that Russian courts were capable, in the absence of any results from a criminal investigation, such as the determination of the perpetrators, to consider the merits of a civil claim by an injured party (Cf. Baysayeva v. Russia, judgment of 5 April 2007, appl. no. 74237/01, § 106). Those observations led the Court to the conclusion that violation of Article 2, in conjunction with Article 13, had occurred in the cases examined. It should be pointed out that in the instant case the repeated appeals by the applicants against their lack of access to the investigation files and the discontinuation of the investigation were completely ineffective. The Government believe that there are no premises for the Court to depart from its earlier line of reasoning in the instant case. Moreover, having in mind the Court’s position that the obligation of the State to provide an effective appeal remedy is not an obligation as concerns the result, the contradictory decisions of the judicial organs and their replication of whole passages of judgment substantiations indicate the absence of an effective appeal remedy.

152. The Polish Government further wish to note that in the course of proceedings before

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

287

Russian courts, the applicants – as foreign nationals – were refused access to the Chief Military Prosecutor’s Office decision of 21 September 2004 to discontinue the Katyń investigation because it had been classified by the Inter-Department Commission on the Protection of State Secrets on 22 December 2004. The fact that the Inter-Department Commission issued its ruling on 22 December 2004 to classify the decision to discontinue the Katyń investigation is confirmed by the Russian Federation in its position submitted to the Court (see par. 34 of the Memorandum of the Government of the Russian Federation). However, at a hearing on 13 July 2010, during proceedings concerning a complaint filed by the Memorial Association before the Moscow City Court, the court heard a letter of 25 June 2010 addressed to it by the Inter-Department Commission (for full text see Attachment 5), in which the Commission declared: “No decision [by the Inter-Department Commission] was issued on 22 December 2004 to classify the Chief Military Prosecutor’s Office decision of 21 September 2004 to discontinue the penal investigation No. 159”. The above letter of the Commission contradicts the position of the Russian authorities presented hitherto, also in the course of the proceedings before the Court, that the Commission had classified the decision to discontinue the Russian Katyń investigation.

153. Considering the above, the Government believe that a violation of Article 13 of the Convention occurred in the instant case.

I.

FINAL CONCLUSIONS

154. In view of the above observations, the Government submit to the European Court of

Human Rights that application no. 29520/09 should be admitted, in accordance with Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention.

155. In any case, the Government allege that Article 2 of the Convention under its procedural limb, along with Articles 3, 6 and 13 of the Convention, were all violated in the instant case.

Encl. Attachments nos. 1, 2 , 3, 4 and 5.

Czy dokument znajduje się w posiadaniu Federacji Rosyjskiej

Komentarz: Na liście wywozowej nazwisko W. Wołka ujęte zostało na 3 miejscu. Po prawej stronie od nazwiska znajduje się indywidualny nr jego „sprawy” – 299.

1.3. Wykaz Polskiego Czerwonego Krzyża osób 2.3. „2564. Wołk Wincenty” ekshumowanych wiosną 1943 r.

Patrz: Załącznik nr 1C

Komentarz: Lista przekazana przez Polskę w dniu 11.04.1991 (pkt. 9)

3.3. TAK Patrz: Załącznik nr 2A

Komentarz: Lista przekazana przez Polskę w dniu 28.06.1991 (pkt. 9)

3.2. TAK Patrz: Załącznik nr 2B

2.1. „3. WOŁK Wikientija Wacławowicza, r. ur. 1909 (sprawa 3.1. TAK N°) 299” [3. ВОЛК Викентия Вацлавовича, 1909 г. р., (дело Н°) 299]

Treść Dokumentu

1.2. Niemiecka lista ekshumacyjna z 1943 r. – 2.2. „2564. Wolk, Winzenty, Obltn.

Amtliches Material zum Massenmord von KATYN, Postkarte, Brief, 3 Abzeichen” Berlin 1943 Patrz: Załącznik nr 1B Komentarz: Na liście ekshumacyjnej nazwisko W. Wołka ujęte zostało na miejscu 2564. Obok nazwiska wymieniono przedmioty, na podstawie których dokonano identyfikacji: pocztówka, list, 3 odznaki.

1.1. Lista wywozowa nr 052/3 z 27 kwietnia 1940 r. z poleceniem przekazania 100 polskich jeńców wojennych z obozu NKWD w Kozielsku pod zarząd naczelnika NKWD na okręg smoleński Patrz: Załącznik nr 1A

Dokument

Wincenty Wołk (1909 – 1940 †) ojciec i mąż pierwszej i drugiej skarżącej

Załącznik nr 1 – Zestawienie informacji na temat losu krewnych Skarżących, Ofiar Zbrodni Katyńskiej, będących w posiadaniu Federacji Rosyjskiej – tabela obejmująca dokumenty źródłowe oznaczone numerami od 1 A do 1 M.

1.2. Niemiecka lista ekshumacyjna z 1943 r. – Amtliches Material zum Massenmord von KATYN, Berlin 1943 Patrz: Załącznik nr 1B

1.1. Lista wywozowa nr 017/2 z kwietnia / maja 1940 r. z poleceniem przekazania 100 polskich jeńców wojennych z obozu NKWD w Kozielsku pod zarząd naczelnika NKWD na okręg smoleński Patrz: Załącznik nr 1E

Dokument

Treść Dokumentu

Komentarz: Na liście ekshumacyjnej nazwisko S. Rodowicza ujęte zostało na miejscu 970. Obok nazwiska wymieniono przedmioty, na podstawie których dokonano identyfikacji: m.in. książeczka żołdu, paszport, pocztówka, wizytówka, notes.

2.2. „970. Rodowicz, Stanisław, Ing.-Major Offz.-Soldbuch, 1 Passierausweis, Teil der Verleihungsurkunde, ‘unbesiegte Kämpfer’, Reisepaß, 1 Postkarte, Visitenkarte, 1 Notizbuch”

Komentarz: Na liście wywozowej nazwisko S. Rodowicza ujęte zostało na 94 miejscu. Po prawej stronie od nazwiska znajduje się indywidualny nr jego „sprawy” – 3505.

2.1. „94. RODOWICZ, Stanisława Teodorowicza, r. ur.

1883, (sprawa N°) 3505” [94. РОДОВИЧ Станислава Теодоровича, 1883 г. р. (дело Н°) 3505]

Stanisław Rodowicz (1883 – 1940 †) dziadek trzeciej skarżącej

1.4. Kartoteki osobowe do wykazu Polskiego 2.4. [Awers:] „Poległy (zmarły) Wołk Wincenty por. …”

Czerwonego Krzyża osób ekshumowanych [Rewers:] „Zwłoki Nr 2564 ekshumowano wiosną 1943 r. w wiosną 1943 r.

Katyniu … pocztówka, list, 3 odznaki … wykaz ekshumowanych” Patrz: Załącznik nr 1D Komentarz: Kartoteka pod nazwiskiem W. Wołk, nr zwłok 2564, zawiera wykaz przedmiotów, na podstawie których dokonano identyfikacji: pocztówka, list, 3 odznaki.

Komentarz: Lista przekazana przez Polskę w dniu 28.06.1991 (pkt. 9)

3.2. TAK Patrz: Załącznik nr 2B

3.1. TAK

Czy dokument znajduje się w posiadaniu Federacji Rosyjskiej

Komentarz: Lista przekazana przez Polskę w dniu 11.04.1991 (pkt. 10)

3.4. TAK Patrz: Załącznik nr 2A

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights 289

2.4. [Awers:] „Poległy (zmarły) Rodowicz Stanisław major inż. …”, [Rewers:] „Zwłoki ekshumowano wiosną 1943 r. w Katyniu Nr zwłok 970 … ofic. ks. żołdu, paszport, część dowodu nadania orderu ‘[niezroz.] żołnierz’, 1 pocztówka, wizytówka, notes … wykaz ekshumowanych”

1.4. Kartoteki osobowe do wykazu Polskiego Czerwonego Krzyża osób ekshumowanych wiosną 1943 r.

Patrz: Załącznik nr 1D

1.1. Lista wywozowa nr 014/4 z 4.04.1940 r. z poleceniem przekazania 99 polskich jeńców wojennych z obozu NKWD w Kozielsku pod zarząd naczelnika NKWD na okręg smoleński Patrz: Załącznik nr 1F

Dokument

3.1. TAK

Czy dokument znajduje się w posiadaniu Federacji Rosyjskiej

Komentarz: Lista przekazana przez Polskę w dniu 11.04.1991 (pkt. 10)

3.4. TAK Patrz: Załącznik nr 2A

Komentarz: Lista przekazana przez Polskę w dniu 11.04.1991 (pkt. 9)

3.3. TAK Patrz: Załącznik nr 2A

Komentarz: Na liście wywozowej nazwisko S. Mieleckiego ujęte zostało na 97 miejscu. Po prawej stronie od nazwiska znajduje się indywidualny nr jego „sprawy” – 2887.

2.1. „97. MIELECKIEGO, Stanisława Janowicza, r. ur.

1895, (sprawa N°) 2887” [97. МЕЛЕЦКОВО Станислава Яановича, 1895 г. р., (дело Н°) 2887]

Treść Dokumentu

Stanisław Mielecki (1895 – 1940 †) Ojciec dwunastej skarżącej

Komentarz: Kartoteka pod nazwiskiem S. Rodowicza, nr zwłok 970, zawiera wykaz przedmiotów, na podstawie których dokonano identyfikacji: książeczka żołdu, paszport, inne.

2.3. „970. Rodowicz Stanisław”

1.3. Wykaz Polskiego Czerwonego Krzyża osób ekshumowanych wiosną 1943 r.

Patrz: Załącznik nr 1C

290 Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka

2.4. Awers: „Poległy (zmarły) Mielecki Stanisław oficer 22.IV.1895 …”

Rewers: „Zwłoki Nr 3425 ekshumowano wiosną 1943 r. w Katyniu … legitym. oficerska, ks. P.K.O., medalik z łańcuszkiem … wykaz ekshumowanych”

1.4. Kartoteki osobowe do wykazu Polskiego Czerwonego Krzyża osób ekshumowanych wiosną 1943 r.

Patrz: Załącznik nr 1D

2.5. „Biuro Informacyjne Polskiego Czerwonego Krzyża komunikuje, że na liście ekshumowanych ze zbiorowych polskich grobów w Kozich-Górach /Katyń k. Smoleńska/ pod Nr. ewid.

03425 figuruje wojskowy MIELECKI Stanisław, ur. 22.IV.1895 r. … Przy nim znaleziono: książeczkę PKO, legitymację osobistą Wojsk., kartę wstępu na obszar kolejowy, medalik z łańcuszkiem.-”

Komentarz: Kartoteka pod nazwiskiem S. Mielecki, nr zwłok 3425, zawiera wykaz przedmiotów, na podstawie których dokonano identyfikacji, m.in. legitymacji oficerskiej.

2.3. „3425. Mielecki Stanisław”

1.5. Pismo o sygn. IV/ [nieczyt.] 0.43.13.W Dyrektora Polskiego Czerwonego Krzyża do Marii Mieleckiej dotyczące identyfikacji w 1943 r. w Katyniu jej męża S. Mieleckiego Patrz: Załącznik nr 1G

3.2. TAK Patrz: Załącznik nr 2B

Komentarz: Pismo przekazane przez Polskę w dniu 11.04.1991 r. (pkt. 14)

3.5. TAK Patrz: Załącznik nr 2A

Komentarz: Lista przekazana przez Polskę w dniu 11.04.1991 (pkt. 10)

3.4. TAK Patrz: Załącznik nr 2A

Komentarz: Lista przekazana przez Polskę w dniu 11.04.1991 (pkt. 9)

3.3. TAK Patrz: Załącznik nr 2A

Komentarz: Na liście ekshumacyjnej nazwisko W. Wołka Komentarz: Lista przekazana przez ujęte zostało na miejscu 3425. Obok nazwiska wymieniono Polskę w dniu 28.06.1991 (pkt. 9) przedmioty, na podstawie których dokonano identyfikacji: m.in. legitymacja oficerska i medalik z łańcuszkiem.

2.2. „3425. Mielecki, Stanislaw, Offizier, geb. 22 4 1895.

Offiz.-Ausweis, Postsparbuch, 1 Medallion m. Kette”

1.3. Wykaz Polskiego Czerwonego Krzyża osób ekshumowanych wiosną 1943 r.

Patrz: Załącznik nr 1C

1.2. Niemiecka lista ekshumacyjna z 1943 r. – Amtliches Material zum Massenmord von KATYN, Berlin 1943 Patrz: Załącznik nr 1B

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights 291

2.7. „Sąd Grodzki w Aleksandrowie Kujawskim … postanawia: 3.7. TAK 1) stwierdzić zgon Stanisława Mieleckiego … i chwilę jego śmierci Patrz: Załącznik nr 2A oraz jej miejsce oznaczyć na godz. 24 w dniu 30 kwietnia 1943 r. w Kozich-Górach koło Smoleńska …”

Komentarz: Postanowienie przekazane przez Polskę w dniu Komentarz: Chwila śmierci S. Mieleckiego ustalona przez sąd 11.04.1991 r. zbiega się z okresem przeprowadzenia prac ekshumacyjnych w (pkt. 14) Katyniu w 1943 r. W okresie od 15.04. do 7.06.1943 r. prace ekshumacyjne prowadziła Komisja Techniczna Polskiego Czerwonego Krzyża a w okresie od 28 do 30.07.1943 r.

Międzynarodowa Komisja Lekarska.

1.7. Postanowienie Sądu Grodzkiego w Aleksandrowie Kujawskim z dnia 16.01.1947 r. w sprawie o sygn. Zg.31/46 w przedmiocie stwierdzenia zgonu S. Mieleckiego Patrz: Załącznik nr 1I

Komentarz: Protokół przekazany przez Polskę w dniu 11.04.1991 r. (pkt. 14)

3.6. TAK Patrz: Załącznik nr 2A

2.7. „[Maria Mielecka:] Stwierdzam, że od męża swego Stanisława Mieleckiego ostatni raz otrzymałam wiadomość w dniu 13.III.1940 r. z Kozielska w Rosji i od tej chwili już żadnych wiadomości nie otrzymałam. Z prasy dowiedziałam się, że mąż zginął w Kozielsku. Przy końcu 1943 r. zawiadomił mnie również o tym Czerwony Krzyż w Warszawie …”

1.6. Protokół z 16.01.1947 r. z przesłuchania Marii Mieleckiej przed Sądem Grodzkim w Aleksandrowie Kujawskim w sprawie o sygn.

Zg.31/46 w przedmiocie stwierdzenia zgonu jej męża S. Mieleckiego Patrz: Załącznik nr 1H

292 Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka

Komentarz: W trakcie polsko - rosyjskich prac ekshumacyjnych prowadzonych od dnia 25.07. do dnia 9.08.1991 r. w VI kwartale strefy parkowo-leśnej Charkowa wśród szczątków ludzkich oraz licznych przedmiotów polskiego pochodzenia w kieszeni kurtki jednego z polskich oficerów, Jerzego Sochy, więźnia obozu w Starobielsku o nr 2976, ujawniono zwój kartek. Na jednej z kartek widnieje lista 118 nazwisk pułkowników i podpułkowników Wojska Polskiego, z których 78 udało się odczytać. Pod numerem 89 widnieje nazwisko Ryszarda Żołędziowskiego. Lista obejmuje 40 % stanu osobowego oficerów w randze pułkownika i podpułkownika, jeńców obozu w Starobielsku na dzień 16.03.1940 r.

Komentarz: Ekspertyza policji wraz z materiałem fotograficznym przekazana przez Polskę w dniu 9.10.1992 r.

3.3. TAK Patrz: Załącznik nr 2D

2.3. „89 Żołędziowski Ryszard 1887 ppłk …5”

1.3. Przedmiot nr 28/30/19 Ekspertyzy kryminalistycznej nr HLE-3937/91 Centralnego Laboratorium Kryminalistycznego Komendy Głównej Policji w Warszawie z 16.07.1992 r. (kartka z listą 118 nazwisk polskich oficerów) Patrz: Załącznik nr 1K Fotografia

Czy dokument znajduje się w posiadaniu Federacji Rosyjskiej

2.1. „1151. Żołędziowski Ryszard Aleksandrowicz 1887” [1151. 3.1. TAK Жолендзиовски Ришард Александрович 1887] Komentarz: Lista znajduje się w Komentarz: Nazwisko R. Żołędziowskiego widnieje na liście tomie nr 3 akt śledztwa nr 159 pod numerem 1151

Treść Dokumentu

1.1. Lista jeńców obozu NKWD w Starobielsku, sporządzona przez naczelnika obozu sierżanta Gajdideja oraz sekretarz Bołdariewę opatrzona tytułem „Spis ewidencyjny jeńców wojennych ubyłych z obozu NKWD ZSRR w Starobielsku” [СПИСОК Учетных дел на убывших военнопленных Старобельского Лагеря НКВД СССР]. Dokument pozbawiony jest daty Patrz: Załącznik nr 1J

Dokument

Ryszard Żołędziowski (1887 – 1940 †) wujek trzynastego skarżącego

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights 293

Dokument

Treść Dokumentu

Treść Dokumentu

Komentarz: Nazwisko S. Uziembło widnieje na liście pod numerem 3400 .

2.1. „3400 Uziembło Stanisław Józefowicz”[3400. УЗЕМБЛО Станислав Иосифович 1889]

Stefan Erchard (1900 – 1940 †) Ojciec siódmego skarżącego

1.1. Lista jeńców obozu NKWD w Starobielsku, sporządzona przez naczelnika obozu sierżanta Gajdideja oraz sekretarz Bołdariewę opatrzona tytułem „Spis ewidencyjny jeńców wojennych ubyłych z obozu NKWD ZSRR w Starobielsku” [СПИСОК Учетных дел на убывших военнопленных Старобельского Лагеря НКВД СССР]. Dokument pozbawiony jest daty Patrz: Załącznik nr 1J

Dokument

Stanisław Uziembło (1889 – 1940 †) Ojciec czwartej skarżącej

Czy dokument znajduje się w posiadaniu Federacji Rosyjskiej

Komentarz: Lista znajduje się w tomie nr 3 akt śledztwa nr 159

3.1. TAK

Czy dokument znajduje się w posiadaniu Federacji Rosyjskiej

294 Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka

1.1. Lista jeńców obozu NKWD w Starobielsku, sporządzona przez naczelnika obozu sierżanta Gajdideja oraz sekretarz Bołdariewę opatrzona tytułem „Spis ewidencyjny jeńców wojennych ubyłych z obozu NKWD ZSRR w Starobielsku” [СПИСОК Учетных дел на убывших военнопленных Старобельского Лагеря НКВД СССР]. Dokument pozbawiony jest daty Patrz: Załącznik nr 1J

Dokument

Czy dokument znajduje się w posiadaniu Federacji Rosyjskiej

2.1. „2219 MALEWICZ Stanisław Wacławowicz 1888”[2219. 3.1. TAK МАЛЕВИЧ Станислав Вацлавович 1888] Komentarz: Lista znajduje się w tomie Komentarz: Nazwisko S. A. Malewicza widnieje na liście pod nr 3 akt śledztwa nr 159 numerem 2219. Przy nazwisku umieszczono błędną datę urodzenia 1888 r. zamiast 1889 r.

Treść Dokumentu

2.1. „3869. Erchard Stefan Adamowicz 1900” [3869. ЭРХАРД 3.1. TAK Стефан Адамович 1900] Komentarz: Lista znajduje się w Komentarz: Nazwisko S. Ercharda widnieje na liście pod tomie nr 3 akt śledztwa nr 159 numerem 3869.

Stanisław August Malewicz (1889 – 1940 †) Ojciec ósmego i dziewiątego skarżącego

1.1. Lista jeńców obozu NKWD w Starobielsku, sporządzona przez naczelnika obozu sierżanta Gajdideja oraz sekretarz Bołdariewę opatrzona tytułem „Spis ewidencyjny jeńców wojennych ubyłych z obozu NKWD ZSRR w Starobielsku” [СПИСОК Учетных дел на убывших военнопленных Старобельского Лагеря НКВД СССР]. Dokument pozbawiony jest daty Patrz: Załącznik nr 1J

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights 295

1.1. Lista wywozowa nr 033/2 z 16.04.1940 r. z poleceniem przekazania 100 polskich jeńców wojennych z obozu NKWD w Ostaszkowie pod zarząd naczelnika NKWD na okręg kaliniński Patrz: Załącznik nr 1Ł

Dokument

Czy dokument znajduje się w posiadaniu Federacji Rosyjskiej

Czy dokument znajduje się w Federacji Rosyjskiej

2.1. „10. WIELEBNOWSKIEGO Aleksandra Ł[nieczyt.]owicza, 3.1. TAK r. ur. 1897, (Sprawa N°) 2624” [10. ВЕЛЕБНОВСКОГО Александра Л[nieczyt.]овича , 1897 г. р., ( Дело Н°) 2624] Komentarz: Lista znajduje się w tomie nr 11 akt śledztwa nr 159 Komentarz: Nazwisko A. Wielebnowskiego widnieje na liście pod numerem 10. Po prawej stronie od nazwiska znajduje się indywidualny nr jego „sprawy” – 2624.

Treść Dokumentu

posiadaniu

2.1. „5. TOMASZEWSKIEGO Szymona Janowicza, r. ur. 1900, 3.1. TAK (Sprawa N°) 5390” [5. ТОМАШЕВСКОВО Шимона Яновича, 1900 г. р., (Дело Н°) 5390] Komentarz: Lista znajduje się w tomie nr 11 akt śledztwa nr 159 Komentarz: Nazwisko S. Tomaszewskiego widnieje na liście pod numerem 5. Po prawej stronie od nazwiska znajduje się indywidualny nr jego „sprawy” – 5390.

Treść Dokumentu

Aleksander Wielebnowski (1897 – 1940 †) Ojciec szóstego skarżącego

1.1. Lista wywozowa nr 045/3 z 22.04.1940 r. z poleceniem przekazania 95 polskich jeńców wojennych z obozu NKWD w Ostaszkowie pod zarząd naczelnika NKWD na okręg kaliniński Patrz: Załącznik nr 1L

Dokument

Szymon Tomaszewski (1900 – 1940 †) Ojciec piątego skarżącego

296 Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka

1.1. Lista wywozowa nr 037/2 z 20.04.1940 r. z poleceniem przekazania 100 polskich jeńców wojennych z obozu NKWD w Ostaszkowie pod zarząd naczelnika NKWD na okręg kaliniński Patrz: Załącznik nr 1M

Dokument

Komentarz: Nazwisko M. Adamczyka widnieje na liście pod numerem 5. Po prawej stronie od nazwiska znajduje się indywidualny nr jego „sprawy” – 1251.

2.1. „5. ADAMCZYK Michała Antonowicza, r. ur.

1903 (sprawa nr) 1251” [5. АДАМЧИК Михаила Антоновича, 1903 г. р. (дело Н°) 1251]

Treść Dokumentu

Michał Adamczyk (1903 – 1940 †) Ojciec dziesiątej i jedenastej skarżącej

Komentarz: Lista znajduje się w tomie nr 11 akt śledztwa nr 159

3.1. TAK

Czy dokument znajduje Federacji Rosyjskiej

się w posiadaniu

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights 297

1.3. The Polish Red Cross list of persons exhumed in Spring 1943.

See: Attachment 1C

is the document in possession of the Russian Federation?

Comment: W. Wołk’s name is listed under number 3 on the dispatch list. The number of his individual “case” – 299 is written next to his name on the right.

2.3. “2564. Wołk Wincenty”

Comment: The list handed over by Poland on 11.04.1991 (point 9).

3.3. YES See: Attachment 2A

Comment: The list handed over by Poland on 28.06.1991 (point 9).

3.2. YES See: Attachment 2B

2.1. “3. WOŁK Wikientija Wacławowicza, born 1909 (case no.) 3.1. YES 299” [3. ВОЛК Викентия Вацлавовича, 1909 г. р., (дело Н°) 299]

Content of the document

1.2. German exhumation list of 1943 – Amtliches 2.2. “2564. Wolk, Winzenty, Obltn.

Material zum Massenmord von KATYN, Berlin Postkarte, Brief, 3 Abzeichen” 1943.

See: Attachment 1B Comment: The name of W. Wołk is listed under number 2564 on the German exhumation list. Next to his name are items used during the identification: a postcard, a letter, and three decorations.

1.1. Dispatch list no. 052/3 of 27 April 1940 with order to transfer 100 Polish POWs from the NKVD camp in Kozelsk to the NKVD chief of the Smolensk district.

See: Attachment 1A

Document

Wincenty Wołk (1909-1940 †) father of the first applicant and husband of the second applicant

Attachment no. 1 – Compilation of information about the fate of the Applicants’ relatives, Victims of the Katyń Crime, in the possession of the Russian Federation – table listing source documents numbered from 1 A to 1 M.

298 Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka

1.2. The German exhumation list of 1943 – Amtliches Material zum Massenmord von KATYN, Berlin 1943.

See: Attachment 1B

2.1. “94. RODOWICZ, Stanisława Teodorowicza, born 1883, (case no.) 3505” [94. РОДОВИЧ Станислава Теодоровича, 1883 г. р. (дело Н°) 3505]

1.1. Dispatch list no. 017/2 of April/May1940 with the order to transfer 100 Polish POWs from the NKVD camp in Kozelsk to the NKVD chief of the Smolensk district.

See: Attachment 1E

Comment: The name of S. Rodowicz is listed under number 970 on the German exhumation list. Right to his name are items used during the identification, including an officer’s payment book, a passport, a postcard, a visiting card, and a notebook.

2.2. “970. Rodowicz, Stanisław, Ing.-Major Offz.-Soldbuch, 1 Passierausweis, Teil der Verleihungsurkunde, ‘unbesiegte Kämpfer’, Reisepaß, 1 Postkarte, Visitenkarte, 1 Notizbuch”

Comment: The name of S. Rodowicz is listed under number 94 on the dispatch list. The number of his individual “case” – 3505 is written next to his name.

Content of the document

Stanisław Rodowicz (1883-1940 †) grandfather of the third applicant

Comment: Record under the name of W. Wołk, human remains no. 2564, contains the list of items used during the identification: postcards, a letter, and three decorations.

2.4. [obverse:] „Fallen (deceased) Wołk Wincenty por. …” [reverse:] “Remains No 2564 recovered in Spring 1943 in Katyn … postcard, letter, 3 decorations … the list of recovered human remains”

Document

1.4. Personal records attached to the Polish Red Cross List of human remains exhumed in Spring 1943.

See: Attachment 1D

Comment: The list conveyed by Poland on 28.06.1991 (point 9).

3.2. YES See: Attachment 2B

3.1. YES

is the document in possession of the Russian Federation

Comment: The list handed over by Poland on 11.04.1991 (point 10).

3.4. YES See: Attachment 2A

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights 299

1.1. Dispatch list no. 014/4 of 4.04.1940 with the order to transfer Polish POWs from the NKVD camp in Kozelsk to the NKVD chief of the Smolensk district.

See: Attachment 1F

Document

2.4. [obverse:] “Fallen (deceased) Rodowicz Stanisław major engineer …”, [reverse:] „ Remains No 970 recovered in Spring 1943 in Katyn … officer’s payment book, a passport, part of a decoration certificate for ‘[illegible] soldier’, 1 postcard, a visiting card, notebook (…) the list of recovered human remains”

1.4. Personal records attached to the Polish Red Cross List of human remains exhumed in the Spring of 1943.

See: Attachment 1D

Comment: The name of S. Mielecki is listed under number 97 on the dispatch list. Next to the name is the number of his individual “case” – 2887.

2.1. “97. MIELECKIEGO, Stanisława Janowicza, born 1895, (case N°) 2887” [97. МЕЛЕЦКОВО Станислава Яановича, 1895 г. р., (дело Н°) 2887]

Content of the document

Stanisław Mielecki (1895-1940 †) Father of the twelfth applicant

Comment: The personal record of S. Rodowicz, human remains no. 970, contains a list of items used during the identification: soldier’s pay book, passport, others.

2.3. “970. Rodowicz Stanisław”

1.3. The Polish Red Cross list of persons exhumed in the Spring of 1943.

See: Attachment 1C

3.1. YES

is the document in possession of the Russian Federation

Comment: The list handed over by Poland on 11.04.1991 (point 10).

3.4. YES See: Attachment 2A

Comment: The list handed over by Poland on 11.04.1991 (point 9).

3.3. YES See: Attachment 2A

300 Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka

2.4. [obverse:] „Fallen (deceased) Mielecki Stanisław officer 22.IV.1895 …”, [reverse:] „ Remains No 3425 recovered in Spring 1943 in Katyn … officer’s service papers, savings book, medallion with chain … the list of recovered human remains”

1.4. Personal records attached to the Polish Red Cross List of human remains exhumed in the Spring of 1943.

See: Attachment 1D

2.5. “The Information Bureau of the Polish Red Cross notifies that serviceman MIELECKI Stanisław, born 22.04.1895, appears on the list of exhumed Polish mass graves in Kozie-Góry /Katyn near Smolensk/ under record no. 03425. (…) The following items were recovered together with him: a PKO savings book, a personal card of the Army, a pass to the railway area, a medallion with chain.”

2.7. „[Maria Mielecka:] I declare that I received the last message from my husband Stanislaw Mielecki on 13.03.1940 from Kozelsk in Russia and that I have not received any information since then.

I learned from newspapers that my husband died in Kozelsk. In late 1943 I was also informed about this fact by the Polish Red Cross in Warsaw ...”

1.5. Letter no. IV/ [illegible] 0.43.13.W by the Director of the Polish Red Cross to Maria Mielecka concerning the identification of her husband, S. Mielecki in 1943 in Katyn.

See: Attachment 1G

1.6. Record from the hearing dated 16.01.1947 of Maria Mielecka before the Borough Court in Aleksandrow Kujawski in the case registered under reference no. Zg.31/46 concerning recognition of her husband S. Mielecki as a deceased person.

See: Attachment 1H

Comment: The personal record of S. Mielecki, human remains no. 3425, contains the list of items used during the identification, including officer’s service papers.

2.3. “3425. Mielecki Stanisław”

1.3. The Polish Red Cross List of persons exhumed in the Spring of 1943.

See: Attachment 1C

1.2. German exhumation list of 1943 – Amtliches 2.2. “3425. Mielecki, Stanislaw, Offizier, geb. 22 4 1895.

Material zum Massenmord von KATYN, Berlin Offiz.-Ausweis, Postsparbuch, 1 Medallion m. Kette” 1943.

Comment: The name of S. Mielecki is listed under number See: Attachment 1B 3425 on the German exhumation list. Next to his name are items used during the identification, including officer’s service papers and a medallion with a chain.

Komentarz: Protokół przekazany przez Polskę w dniu 11.04.1991 r. (pkt. 14)

3.6. TAK Patrz: Załącznik nr 2A

Comment: The list was handed over

by Poland on 11.04.1991 (point 14).

3.5. YES See: Attachment 2A

Comment: The list was handed over

by Poland on 11.04.1991 (point 10).

3.4. YES See: Attachment 2A

Comment: The list was handed over

by Poland on 11.04.1991 (point 9).

3.3. YES See: Attachment 2A

Comment: The list was handed over

by Poland on 28.06.1991 (point 9).

3.2. YES See: Attachment 2B

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights 301

1.1. List of prisoners of the NKVD camp in Starobelsk titled “The record of war prisoners taken from the NKVD USSR camp in Starobelsk” [СПИСОК Учетных дел на убывших военнопленных Старобельского Лагеря НКВД СССР]” drawn up by NKVD Sergeant Gaydidey and Secretary Boldaryeva. The document is not dated.

See: Attachment 1J

Document

1.7. Decision of the Magistrates’ Court in Aleksandrow Kujawski of 16.01.1947 in the case registered under reference no. Zg.31/46, recognising S. Mielecki as a deceased person.

See: Attachment 1I

Comment: R. Żołędziowski’s name is listed under number 1151 on the list.

2.1. “1151. Żołędziowski Ryszard Aleksandrowicz 1887” [1151. Жолендзиовски Ришард Александрович 1887]

Content of the document

Ryszard Żołędziowski (1887-1940 †) uncle of the thirteenth applicant

Comment: The list is included in volume 3 of the investigation No. 159 files.

3.1. YES

Whether the document is in the possession of the Russian Federation

2.7. “The Municipal Court in Aleksandrów Kujawski (…) ruled: 3.7. YES 1) to declare Stanisław Mielecki dead (…) and to determine the See: Attachment 2A time and the place of his death at 12.00 am 30 April 1943 in Kozie Góry near Smolensk (…)”

Comment: The ruling was handed over by Poland on 11.04.1991 Comment: The time of the death of S. Mielecki determined (point 14). by the court coincides with the period of exhumation works in Katyń in 1943. Between 15.04. and 7.06.1943 exhumations were conducted by the Polish Red Cross Technical Commission and between 28.07.1943 and 30.07.1943 by the International Forensic Commission.

302 Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka

1.1. List of prisoners of the NKVD camp in Starobelsk titled “The record of war prisoners taken from the NKVD USSR camp in Starobelsk” [СПИСОК Учетных дел на убывших военнопленных Старобельского Лагеря НКВД СССР]” drawn up by NKVD Sergeant Gaydidey and Secretary Boldaryeva. The document is not dated.

See: Attachment 1J

Document

1.3. Exhibit no. 28/30/19 from forensic report no. HLE-3937/91 dated 16.07.1992 of the Central Criminal Laboratory of the of Police Headquarters in Warsaw (a sheet of paper with a list of the names of 118 Polish officers).

See: Attachment 1K Photo

3.3. YES See: Attachment 2D

Comment: The name of S. Uziembło is listed under number 3400 on the list.

2.1. “3400 Uziembło Stanisław Józefowicz 1889” [3400. УЗЕМБЛО Станислав Иосифович 1889]

Content of the document

Stanisław Uziembło (1889-1940 †) father of the fourth applicant

Comment: The list is included in volume 3 of investigation No. 159 files.

3.1. YES

is the document in possession of the Russian Federation

Comment: During the Polish-Russian exhumation works conducted from 25 July to 9 August 1991 in the 4th quarter Comment: Police expert opinion of the park-forest zone in Kharkov, a roll of paper sheets with photographic documentation was found in the pocket of one of the Polish officers, Jerzy handed over by Poland on 9.10.1992.

Socha, a prisoner of the Starobelsk camp No. 2976 among the human remains and numerous items of Polish origin. A list of 118 names of Polish colonels and lieutenant colonels of the Polish Army was found on one of the sheets of paper.

The list served to identify 78 names, including the name of Ryszard Żołędziowski whose name is no. 89 on the list. The list comprises 40 % of the officers’ staff in the rank of colonel and lieutenant colonel, prisoners of the Starobelsk camp as at 16 March 1940.

2.3. „89 Żołędziowski Ryszard 1887 ppłk …5”

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights 303

1.1. List of prisoners of the NKVD camp in Starobelsk titled “The record of war prisoners taken from the NKVD USSR camp in Starobelsk” [СПИСОК Учетных дел на убывших военнопленных Старобельского Лагеря НКВД СССР]” drawn up by NKVD Sergeant Gaydidey and Secretary Boldaryeva. The document is not dated.

See: Attachment 1J

Document

Comment: The name of S. Erchard Number is listed under number 3869 on the list.

2.1. “3869. Erchard Stefan Adamowicz 1900” [3869. ЭРХАРД Стефан Адамович 1900]

Content of the document

3.1. YES

is the document in possession of the Russian Federation

Comment: The list is included in volume 3 of investigation No. 159 files.

3.1. YES

is the document in possession of the Russian Federation

Comment: The list is included in Comment: The name of S. A. Malewicz is listed under number volume 3 of investigation No. 159 files.

2219. An incorrect date of his birth – 1888 instead 1889 – was put down next to his name.

2.1. “2219 MALEWICZ Stanisław Wacławowicz 1888” [2219. МАЛЕВИЧ Станислав Вацлавович 1888]

Content of the document

Stanisław August Malewicz (1889-1940 †) father of the eighth and ninth applicant

1.1. List of prisoners of the NKVD camp in Starobelsk titled “The record of war prisoners taken from the NKVD USSR camp in Starobelsk” [СПИСОК Учетных дел на убывших военнопленных Старобельского Лагеря НКВД СССР] drawn up by NKVD sergeant Gaydidey and secretary Boldaryeva. The document is not dated.

See: Attachment 1J

Document

Stefan Erchard (1900-1940 †) Father of the seventh applicant

304 Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka

Content of the document

1.1. Dispatch list no. 033/2 of 16.04.1940 with order to transfer 100 Polish POWs from the NKVD camp in Ostashkov to the NKVD chief of the Kalinin district.

See: Attachment 1Ł

Document

is the document in possession of the Russian Federation

Comment: The list is included in volume 11 of investigation No. 159 files.

3.1. YES

is the document in possession of the Russian Federation

2.1. „10. WIELEBNOWSKIEGO Aleksandra Ł[unclear]owicza, 3.1. YES born 1897, (Case N°) 2624” [10. ВЕЛЕБНОВСКОГО Александра Л[unclear]овича, Comment: The list is included in 1897 г. р., ( Дело Н°) 2624] volume 11 of investigation No. 159 files.

Comment: The name of A. Wielebnowski is listed under number 10 on the dispatch list. Next to his name is the number of his individual “case” – 2624.

Content of the document

Aleksander Wielebnowski (1897-1940 †) father of the sixth applicant

1.1. Dispatch list no. 045/3 of 22.04.1940 with 2.1. “5. TOMASZEWSKIEGO Szymona Janowicza, born 1900, the order to transfer 95 Polish POWs from the (Case N°) 5390” NKVD camp in Ostashkov to the NKVD chief [5. ТОМАШЕВСКОВО Шимона Яновича, 1900 г. р., of the Kalinin district. (Дело Н°) 5390] See: Attachment 1L Comment: The name of S. Tomaszewski is listed under number 5 on the dispatch list. Next to his name is the number of his individual “case” – 5390.

Document

Szymon Tomaszewski (1900-1940 †) father of the fifth applicant

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights 305

1.1. Dispatch list no. 037/2 of 20.04.1940 with order to transfer 100 Polish POWs from the NKVD camp in Ostashkov to the NKVD chief of the Kalinin district.

See: Attachment 1M

Document

Comment: The name of M. Adamczyk is listed under number 5 on the dispatch list. Next to his name is a number of his individual “case” – 1251.

2.1. „5. ADAMCZYK Michała Antonowicza, born 1903 (case no.) 1251” [5. АДАМЧИК Михаила Антоновича, 1903 г. р. (дело Н°) 1251]

Content of the document

Michał Adamczyk (1903-1940 †) father of the tenth and eleventh applicant

Comment: The list is included in volume 11 of investigation No. 159 files.

3.1. YES

is the document in possession of the Russian Federation

306 Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

307

Załącznik nr 1A – Lista wywozowa z obozu NKWD w Kozielsku nr 052/3 z 27 kwietnia 1940 r. z poleceniem przekazania 100 polskich jeńców wojennych, w tym Wincentego Wołka, pod zarząd naczelnika NKWD na okręg smoleński (w publikacji załącznik zamieszczony w formie wyciągu).

Str. 307-308.

Attachment no. 1A – Dispatching list from the NKVD Kozelsk camp no. 052/3 dated 27 April 1940 with an order to place 100 Polish prisoners of war, including Mr Wincenty Wołk, under the administration of the NKVD governor of the Smolensk Oblast (Attachment published in excerpted version). Pages 307-308.

308

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

309

Załącznik nr 1B – Niemiecka lista ekshumacyjna Amtliches Material zum Massenmord von KATYŃ z 1943 r. zawierająca nazwiska Wincentego Wołka, Stanisława Rodowicza i Stanisława Mieleckiego – jeńców obozu NKWD w Kozielsku (w publikacji w formie wyciągu). Str. 309-315.

Attachment no. 1B – German exhumation list titled Amtliches Material zum Massenmord von KATYŃ of 1943, including the names of Mr Wincenty Wołk, Mr Stanisław Rodowicz and Mr Stanisław Mielecki, prisoners of war in the NKVD Kozelsk camp (Attachment published in excerpted version). Pages 309-315.

310

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

311

312

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

313

314

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

315

316

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka

Załącznik nr 1C – Wykaz Polskiego Czerwonego Krzyża osób ekshumowanych w Katyniu w 1943 r. zawierający nazwiska Wincentego Wołka, Stanisława Rodowicza i Stanisława Mieleckiego – jeńców obozu NKWD w Kozielsku (w publikacji załącznik zamieszczony w formie wyciągu).

Str. 316-320.

Attachment no. 1C – List by the Polish Red Cross of persons exhumed in Katyń in 1943, including the names of Mr Wincenty Wołk, Mr Stanisław Rodowicz and Mr Stanisław Mielecki, prisoners of war in the NKVD Kozelsk camp (Attachment published in excerpted version). Pages 316-320.

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

317

318

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

319

320

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

321

Załącznik nr 1D – Kartoteka osobowa do wykazu Polskiego Czerwonego Krzyża osób ekshumowanych w Katyniu w 1943 r. zawierająca nazwiska Wincentego Wołka, Stanisława Rodowicza i Stanisława Mieleckiego – jeńców obozu NKWD w Kozielsku (w publikacji załącznik zamieszczony w formie wyciągu). Str. 321-326.

Attachment no. 1D – Personal files attached to the Polish Red Cross’s list of persons exhumed in Katyń in 1943, including the names of Mr Wincenty Wołk, Mr Stanisław Rodowicz and Mr Stanisław Mielecki, prisoners of war in the NKVD Kozelsk camp (Attachment published in excerpted version).

Pages 321-326.

322

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

323

324

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

325

326

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

327

Załącznik nr 1E – Lista wywozowa z obozu NKWD w Kozielsku nr 017/2 z przełomu kwietnia i maja 1940 r. z poleceniem przekazania 100 polskich jeńców wojennych, w tym Stanisława Rodowicza, pod zarząd naczelnika NKWD na okręg smoleński (w publikacji załącznik zamieszczony w formie wyciągu). Str. 327-328.

Attachment no. 1E – Dispatching list from the NKVD Kozelsk camp no. 017/2 from late April or early May 1940 with an order to place 100 Polish prisoners of war, including Mr Stanisław Rodowicz, under the administration of the NKVD governor of the Smolensk Oblast (Attachment published in excerpted version). Pages 327-328.

328

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

329

Załącznik nr 1F – Lista wywozowa z obozu NKWD w Kozielsku nr 014/4 z 4 kwietnia 1940 r. z poleceniem przekazania 99 polskich jeńców wojennych, w tym Stanisława Mieleckiego, pod zarząd naczelnika NKWD na okręg smoleński (w publikacji załącznik zamieszczony w formie wyciągu). Str. 329-330.

Attachment no. 1F – Dispatching list from the NKVD Kozelsk camp no. 014/4 dated 4 April 1940 with an order to place 99 Polish prisoners of war, including Mr Stanisław Mielecki, under the administration of the NKVD governor of the Smolensk Oblast (published in excerpted version).

Pages 329-330.

330

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

331

Załącznik nr 1I – Postanowienie Sądu Grodzkiego w Aleksandrowie Kujawskim z 16 stycznia 1947 r. w sprawie o sygn. Zg.31/46 w przedmiocie stwierdzenia zgonu Stanisława Mieleckiego.

Attachment no. 1I – Decision dated 16 January 1947 by the Borough Court in Aleksandrow Kujawski in the case no. Zg.31/46 on stating the death of Mr Stanisław Mielecki.

332

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka

Załącznik nr 1J – Lista jeńców obozu NKWD w Starobielsku, sporządzona przez naczelnika obozu sierżanta Gajdideja oraz sekretarz Bołdariewę opatrzona tytułem „Spis ewidencyjny jeńców wojennych ubyłych z obozu NKWD ZSRR w Starobielsku”, zawierająca nazwiska Ryszarda Żołędziowskiego, Stanisława Uziembło, Stefana Ercharda i Stanisława Malewicza (w publikacji załącznik zamieszczony w formie wyciągu). Str. 332-339.

Attachment no. 1J – List of prisoners of war in the NKVD Starobelsk camp drawn up by sergeant Gaydidey and Secretary Boldaryeva titled “Registration List of Prisoners of War transferred out

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

333

from the NKVD Starobelsk camp in the USSR,” including the names of Mr Ryszard Żołędziowski, Mr Stanisław Uziembło, Mr Stefan Erchard and Mr Stanisław Malewicz (Attachment published in excerpted version). Pages 332-339.

334

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

335

336

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

337

338

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

339

340

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka

Załącznik nr 1K – Ekspertyza kryminalistyczna nr HLE-3937/91 Centralnego Laboratorium Kryminalistycznego Komendy Głównej Policji w Warszawie z 16 lipca 1992 r. dotycząca kartki zawierającej listę 118 nazwisk polskich oficerów osadzonych w obozie NKWD w Starobielsku, w tym nazwisko Ryszarda Żołędziowskiego, wydobytej podczas prac archeologiczno-ekshumacyjnych w Charkowie w 1991 r. (w publikacji załącznik zamieszczony w formie wyciągu). Do ekspertyzy dołączono kopię fragmentu kartki z nazwiskiem Ryszarda Żołędziowskiego. Str. 340-353.

Attachment no. 1K – Forensic expert opinion no. HLE-3937/91 dated 16 July 1992 drawn up by the Central Criminal Laboratory of the National Police Headquarters in Warsaw about a sheet of

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

341

paper with a list of 118 names of Polish officers detained in the NKVD Starobelsk camp, including Mr Ryszard Żołędziowski, dug out during the archaeological and exhumation work in Kharkov in 1991 (Attachment published in excerpted version). A copy of the fragment of the sheet of paper including the name of Mr Ryszard Żołędziowski was attached to the expert opinion. Pages 340-353.

342

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

343

344

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

345

346

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

347

348

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

349

350

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

351

352

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

353

354

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka

Załącznik nr 1L – Lista wywozowa z obozu NKWD w Ostaszkowie nr 045/3 z 22 kwietnia 1940 r. z poleceniem przekazania 95 polskich jeńców wojennych, w tym Szymona Tomaszewskiego, pod zarząd naczelnika NKWD na okręg kaliniński (w publikacji załącznik zamieszczony w formie wyciągu). Str. 354-355.

Attachment no. 1L – Dispatching list from the NKVD Ostashkov camp no. 045/3 dated 22 April 1940 with an order to place 95 Polish prisoners of war, including Mr Szymon Tomaszewski, under the administration of the NKVD governor of the Kalinin Oblast (Attachment published in excerpted version). Pages 354-355.

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

355

356

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka

Załącznik nr 1Ł – Lista wywozowa z obozu NKWD w Ostaszkowie nr 033/2 z 16 kwietnia 1940 r. z poleceniem przekazania 100 polskich jeńców wojennych, w tym Aleksandra Wielebnowskiego, pod zarząd naczelnika NKWD na okręg kaliniński (w publikacji załącznik zamieszczony w formie wyciągu). Str. 356-357.

Attachment no. 1Ł – Dispatching list from the NKVD Ostashkov camp no. 033/2 dated 16 April 1940 with an order to place 100 Polish prisoners of war, including Mr Aleksander Wielebnowski, under the administration of the NKVD governor of the Kalinin Oblast (Attachment published in excerpted version). Pages 356-357.

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

357

358

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka

Załącznik nr 1M – Lista wywozowa z obozu NKWD w Ostaszkowie nr 037/2 z 20 kwietnia 1940 r. z poleceniem przekazania 100 polskich jeńców wojennych, w tym Michała Adamczyka, pod zarząd naczelnika NKWD na okręg kaliniński (w publikacji załącznik zamieszczony w formie wyciągu). Str. 358-359.

Attachment no. 1M – Dispatching list from the NKVD Ostashkov camp no. 037/2 dated 20 April 1940 with an order to place 100 Polish prisoners of war, including Mr Michał Adamczyk, under the administration of the NKVD governor of the Kalinin Oblast (published in excerpted version).

Pages 358-359.

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

359

360

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka

Załącznik nr 5 – Pismo Międzyresortowej Komisji ds. Ochrony Tajemnicy Państwowej FR z 25 czerwca 2010 r. odczytane 13 lipca 2010 r. na posiedzeniu Moskiewskiego Sądu Miejskiego w sprawie ze skargi Stowarzyszenia Memoriał. Str. 360-361.

Attachment no. 5 – Letter dated 25 June 2010 from the Inter-Departmental Commission on the Protection of State Secrets of the Russian Federation read out at a hearing of the Moscow Municipal Court in the case of the “Memorial” Association on 13 July 2010. Pages 360-361.

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

361

362

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka

Stanowisko dodatkowe Rządu RP z 15 września 2011 r. złożone po decyzji Europejskiego Trybunału Praw Człowieka o połączeniu spraw Janowiec i Trybowski p. Rosji oraz Wołk-Jezierska i inni p. Rosji w jedną sprawę – Janowiec i inni p. Rosji Additional Written Submission by the Government of Poland dated 15 September 2011 following the decision of the European Court of Human Rights to join the cases Janowiec and Trybowski v. Russia and Wołk-Jezierska and Others v. Russia into one, Janowiec and Others v. Russia The Government hereby acknowledge the receipt of your letter dated 11 July 2011. Below please find the Government’s reply to a question put by the Court to the parties to the proceedings.

The Court has asked the parties to the proceedings to provide responses to the question whether the Russian Federation has fulfilled its obligations under Article 38 of the Convention, taking into account their refusal to provide a copy of decision of 21 September, 2004, as requested by the Court.

1.

The Court in its case law has pointed out that for the system of individual petitions set up under Article 34 of the Convention to be effective, states are obligated to provide all necessary assistance to enable petitions to be properly and effectively examined. This obligation makes it incumbent upon the parties to provide the Court with any and all necessary information or documents that are needed to examine a petition. A failure on the Government’s part to submit such information as is in their hands without a satisfactory explanation may reflect negatively on the respondent State’s level of compliance with obligations arising under Article 38 of the Convention (Enukidze and Girgvliani v. Georgia, judgment of 26.04.2011, appl. no. 25091/07, § 296; Taniş and Others v. Turkey, judgment of 2.08.2005, appl. no. 65899/01, §§ 163-164; Tanrikulu v. Turkey, judgment of 8.07.1999, appl. no. 23763/94, §§ 67-71; Imakayeva v. Russia, judgment of 9.11.2006, appl. no. 7615/02, §§ 199-201; Basayeva v. Russia, judgment of 5.04.2007, appl. no. 74231/01, §§ 160-167; Akhmadov and Sadulayeva v. Russia, judgment of 10.05.2007, appl. no. 40464/02, §§ 135-137; Vakhayeva and Others v. Russia, judgment of 29.10.2009, appl. no. 1758/04, §§ 188-194. See also Council of Ministers’s resolutions ResDH(2001)66 of 26.06.2001 and ResDH(2006)45 of 4.07.2006).

2.

The Government of the Russian Federation, despite being requested twice by the Court: on 1 October, 2008 and on 27 November, 2009, has not submitted a copy of the decision of 21 September 2004 discontinuing investigation No. 159 conducted by the Chief Military Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation, or any other source documents directly relating to the fate of the applicants’ relatives. Failure to submit the Chief Military

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

363

Prosecutor’s Office’s decision of 21 September 2004 was explained on the grounds that the requested decision was classified as secret. Lack of response to the Court summons may constitute grounds for finding that the obligation to cooperate with the Court in connection with the examination of the petition was not complied with. This obligation is not violated in the event that the refusal to provide materials has been convincingly explained. In the case at hand the grounds provided have not been convincing for the reasons stated below.

3.

The Court’s case law provides guidelines as to when documents and other materials used in criminal proceedings, as well as decisions issued in the course of proceedings may be classified as secret. The Court has identified a number of situations finding that there exists a continuous and actual public interest in maintaining the confidentiality of materials or decisions. This was the case of the evidence obtained by secret police methods of investigation related to the prosecution of drug-related offences (see, Welke and Białek v. Poland, judgment of 1.03.2011, appl. no. 15924/05, § 63). Similarly, the Court recognised that in proceedings related to the operations of state security agencies, there might be legitimate grounds to limit access to certain documents and other materials (see, Turek v. Slovakia, judgment of 14.02.2006, appl. no. 57986/00, § 115).

4.

In consideration of the Court’s guidelines for determining whether there exists an actual interest in classifying certain evidence as secret and in restricting applicants’ – and consequently the Court’s – access to it, if such evidence is necessary to examine the fairness of proceedings at the domestic level, the actual aim and scope of Russian investigation No. 159, whose fairness is currently subject to the Court’s assessment under the present proceedings, should be considered. With this in mind, the Government of the Republic of Poland wishes to draw the Court’s attention to a number of Russian documents, including decisions of the USSR’s Prosecutor’s Office, drafted at the very beginning of the Russian Katyń investigation.

5.

Before the USSR’s Chief Military Prosecutor’s Office (since 1991: the Chief Military Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation – hereinafter the RF’s CMPO) took over the Russian investigation of the Katyń Crime in September 1990, local criminal proceedings had been carried out in different oblasts of the USSR into the circumstances surrounding the 1940 killings by the NKVD of Polish POWs detained since autumn 1939 in the territory of the USSR. Their mass graves were located in the territory of several oblasts in the USSR. Investigations into these cases had been carried out by the USSR’s Oblast Prosecutor’s Offices in Kharkov and Kalinin (since 1990: Tver). On 22 March, 1990, the Prosecutor’s Office in Kharkov opened investigation no. 189001 “in connection with the fact of [the existence] of mass graves of citizens executed in the forest and park area of Kharkov”. The Prosecutor’s Office provided the following reasons for instituting the proceedings: “the inhabitants of the town in the 60s’ [of the 20th century] found in this place skulls with bullet holes, bones and numerous items” (Attachment no. 1). On 6 June 1990, the Prosecutor’s Office in Kalinin also started investigation no.

42813 following press reports of “the disappearance in the territory of the Kalinin Oblast in unexplained circumstances between 1939-40 of Polish POWs and civilians interned in the USSR”. The investigation was instituted following admission of the circumstance

364

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka that the official duties of the employees of NKVD’s formations in the Kalinin Oblast included detaining the above-mentioned “Polish citizens” (Attachment no. 2). Another example of a Russian document that identified the purpose of the Russian investigation into Katyń Crime was an official memo drawn up on 22 August 1990 in the USSR’s Prosecutor General’s Office on the manner in which the USSR’s CMPO was to address the postulates of the authorities of the Republic of Poland to explain the circumstances of the Katyń Crime. The memorandum speaks of “the moral significance of the clarification of the circumstances of the death of Polish officers detained in the Kozelsk, Starobelsk and Ostashkov camps”. Note should also be taken of two decisions of the USSR’s CMPO, dated 27 September 1990, concerning the fact that the investigation no. 189001 of the Prosecutor’s Office in Kharkov was taken over by the USSR’s CMPO. The USSR’S CMPO in explaining the reasons behind one of the decisions, wrote that the investigation “related to explaining the circumstances of executing Polish POWs, handed over to the USSR’S NKVD Directorate for Prisoners of War” (Attachment no. 3). On 12 November, 1990, the USSR’s Oblast Prosecutor’s Office in Tver decided to hand over its investigation to the USSR’s CMPO. An article published in June 1990 in the Russian press about the “extermination by NKVD’s bodies, in the territory of the USSR, from 1939 to 1940 of Polish prisoners of war, some of whom had been detained in the camp in Ostashkov...” was given as the reason for handing over the investigation to the USSR’s CMPO. The Prosecutor’s Office in Tver further stated in its decision that although in 1939 the USSR and Poland had not been in a state of war, all Polish soldiers and civilians had been detained in POW camps and that that had been their status in the territory of the USSR. The decision made reference to 6287 Polish prisoners of war transported by the NKVD from the camp in Ostashkov, as well as the witness evidence of one of the NKVD’s employees, who claimed that Polish prisoners of war from the camp in Ostashkov had been executed and buried on the premises of one the NKVD’s dachas (Attachment no. 4).

Here it should be added that the following relatives of the applicants: Michał Adamczyk, Aleksander Wielebnowski and Szymon Tomaszewski had been held prisoners of war in the Ostashkov camp.

As it clearly follows from the above decisions issued by the Russian authorities at the end of 1990, after taking over the Kharkov and Tver investigations, USSR’s CMPO conducted investigation No. 159 whose main objective was to explain the circumstances of the 1940 execution of Polish prisoners of war and civilians by the NKVD in the territory of the USSR. 6.

The purpose and scope of Russian investigation No. 159 was also identified in a number of other Russian documents drafted in the course of the Russian investigation. Among them, one should mention the minutes from the exhumations carried out in 1991 in Kharkov, Mednoye and Katyń, as well as the USSR’s CMPO’s motion dated 25 December, 1990, for legal assistance from the Government of the Republic of Poland, which included a statement that the Russian investigation concerned “the fate of the Polish prisoners of war detained in NKVD camps in Kozelsk, Starobelsk and Ostashkov from 1939 until 1940” (Attachment no. 5). Let us recall that all the relatives of the applicants had been detained in these three camps as prisoners of war.

7.

In view of the fact that the Russian Federation refused to submit to the Court decision

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

365

dated 21 September, 2004, and failed to submit any other source documents relating directly to the fate of the applicants’ relatives, and the fact that the Russian Federation in its official position presented to the Court (see letters dated 8 June, 2009, par. 5 and 29 January, 2009, par. 46) claimed that the aim of the Russian investigation into Katyń “had been neither to determine the fate of the Polish prisoners of war, nor to explain the circumstances of the death of the applicants’ relatives”, Poland wishes to submit certain documents from the files of the Russian Katyń investigation No. 159, which directly concern the applicants’ relatives. The documents were contained in one of the 148 volumes of the investigation files handed over by the Russian Federation. These documents evidence that the purpose of this investigation was not only to shed light on all the circumstances of the Katyń Crime, but also to explain the circumstances of the death of the applicants’ relatives, who were victims of this crime Russian Federation’s position presented before the Court seems to suggest that all these documents were ignored by the Russian Federation in the course of their investigation even though they form part of the investigation files No. 159. For the detailed list of these documents see Attachment no. 6.

8.

In order to explain the circumstances of the Katyń Crime, the Russian Federation had undertaken a number of procedural acts in legal proceedings. Although from today’s point of view, they should be considered as insufficient, they did nevertheless intend to explain the fate of individual persons as well as to shed light on all the circumstances in which decisions – most of all political – had been taken. Those decisions concerned entire groups, including Polish citizens who had become Soviet captives in autumn 1939.

Although witnesses had been examined, search queries had been made in state archives, and experts’ opinions had been commissioned to establish the course of events and to assess the relevant documents from the point of view of jurisprudence, history and medical sciences (see, the RF CMPO’s expert commission’s opinion on criminal case No. 159 of 2 August, 1993, the so-called Topornin’s expert opinion), and applications for foreign legal assistance had been filed, many procedural acts which are key to this case had not been carried out. Moreover, some materials collected in the case (including the above-mentioned Topornin’s expert opinion) were barred from evidence. Poland does not have knowledge of all the materials from the Russian criminal investigation. So far, the Russian Federation has handed over certified copies of 148 volumes of the case files, which, however, lack continuity. They contain about 45,000 folios. These documents are now in the process of being translated and analysed. Unfortunately, the Polish side does not know the exact number of all the volumes contained in the case files. In the course of the proceedings, the applicants – relatives of the Katyń Crime victims – had attempted in vain to exercise their procedural rights vested in victims according to Russian law in order to be granted access to the case-file and procedural decisions (see, Article 42 of the Russian Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) of 2001). The preparatory proceedings were eventually discontinued on 21 September, 2004. The official decision to discontinue the investigation was announced to the public at a press conference on 11 March 2005 by a representative of the Chief Military Prosecutor’s Office of the Federal Republic. The contents of the decision to discontinue the investigation and its reasons were classified as “top secret”.

9.

It transpires unequivocally from the documents referred to above that the purpose

366

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka of the investigation was to explain the circumstances of the execution in 1940 by the NKVD in the territory of the USSR of Polish prisoners of war and civilians, including relatives of the applicants, whose bodies were found in mass graves in the towns located in the territory of what is now the Russian Federation and Ukraine. Criminal proceedings into this case were conducted on the basis of the then applicable Soviet Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP) of 1960, and later of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP) of 2001. The generally accepted purpose of any criminal proceedings is to explain the circumstances of a case in a comprehensive way and to identify, on the basis of true factual findings, the perpetrator of a crime and to hold him or her criminally accountable. This general rule has been reflected both in the CCP of 1960 applicable at the time the investigation was instituted and in the CCP of 2001 applicable at the time it was discontinued.

10. The above guidelines of the Court concerning the circumstances under which access to evidence collected during an investigation in the course of conducted proceedings could be restricted, may not justify classifying as secret part of the evidence collected during the investigation and the decision to discontinue the investigation dated 21 September, 2004. The proceedings whose fairness is being assessed by the Court were instituted to establish facts that occurred in 1940 and were not related to the current functions and operations of special services or the police. Therefore, even if a part of the used materials was classified by the former regime, it cannot be assumed that there exists a continuous and actual public interest in restricting access to materials, which the former regime classified as secret. Also unwarranted is the argument that public interest requires that present authorities classify documents relating to historical events which occurred in 1940. The present interests of the state do not justify classifying materials relating to events that occurred 71 years ago. It should be noted that the Russian Federation itself is willing to admit to the Court that it recognises these events as historical (see, the Russian Federation’s letter dated 29 January, 2009, par. 25, which mentions the resolve to establish “historical facts”). The indirect perpetrators of this crime as well as probably most of the NKVD officers who committed it are all dead now. The alleged public interest in classifying the evidence collected during the investigation which results in classifying the circumstances of the crime perpetrated by a totalitarian regime in the past was placed above the continuous and actual interest of the applicants whose aim was to learn the fate that had befallen on their closest relatives. The execution in 1940 of Polish prisoners of war and civilians by the NKVD was a crime, which for political reasons, and on account of the direct responsibility of the leaders of the USSR, could not have been explained before the collapse of the USSR. This was the reason for the lack of any reliable information about the fate of closest relatives that caused mental suffering to the families of the murdered persons for many years to come. Even after the crime was committed in 1940, the families of Polish officers continued to strongly believe from 1940 until 1943 that their relatives were alive (see, letters of families addressed to the emptied NKVD camps). After the discovery of mass graves in Katyń in 1943, the Soviet propaganda tried to demonstrate from 1943 until 1946 that Nazi Germany was responsible for murdering Polish prisoners of war (see, inter alia, the 1944 report of the Burdenko commission, the Soviet Prosecutor’s stance in 1946 at the Nuremberg Trials). The Soviet authorities did

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

367

not disclose any information about the crime until 1990. Attempts to question the official line of the authorities on Katyń were bound to end in political repressions. Political transformations of the early 1990s made it possible to launch the Russian investigation, whose undeniable objective was to establish, in a conclusive way, the circumstances of the death of over 20,000 Polish citizens, including the applicants’ relatives.

11. We should not forget that the applicants represent the closest family members of the murdered persons: spouses, children and siblings. Most of them are now very old. Their first attempts to explain the circumstances of the Katyń Crime were made as early as during the Second World War and were continued at the risk of political repressions until the collapse of the Soviet Union. Throughout this period, the families of the victims kept alive their memory from one generation to the next and never ceased in their efforts to find out the full circumstances of the crime. By classifying the evidence collected during the investigation, the Russian authorities have deprived these people of the possibility to learn the circumstances of the death of their closest family members. Although their closest family members died during the Second World War, that is 71 years ago, the applicants are still not permitted to learn the circumstances of their death to this day, for reasons completely beyond their control.

12. The Court has held in its judgments many times that unless the facts of a case prove otherwise, a continued and actual public interest cannot be assumed to exist in restricting access to classified documents concerning past events. The selection of documents and their disclosure are in the power of today’s authorities. If a party whose interests are affected by classified materials is deprived of access to all or most of the said documents, his or her possibilities of finding out the actual circumstances of events that interest him or her and of opposing the version of events presented by the authorities will be seriously limited (see, Bobek v. Polska, judgment of 17.07.2007, appl. no. 68761/01, § 57).

In the case at hand, the fact that the applicants have been denied access to decision dated 21 September, 2004, on discontinuation of investigation No. 159 and to other source materials means that the applicants are not permitted to know the evidence established in the course of the investigation instituted by Russian authorities into the circumstances of the death of their closest family members. Failure to submit a copy of the decision to the Court by the Russian authorities certainly hinders effective proceedings, the purpose of which is to assess the fairness of the Russian authorities’ proceedings with regard to the applicants.

Encl. Attachments nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6.

368

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka

Załącznik nr 1 – Decyzja Prokuratury Okręgowej ZSRR w Charkowie z 22 marca 1990 r. o wszczęciu śledztwa nr 189001 w sprawie masowych grobów w okolicach Charkowa.

Attachment no. 1 – Decision dated 22 March 1990 by the Regional Prosecutor’s Office of the USSR in Kharkov initiating the investigation no. 189001 into the mass graves found near Kharkov.

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

369

Załącznik nr 2 – Decyzja Prokuratury Okręgowej ZSRR w Kalininie z 6 czerwca 1990 r. o wszczęciu śledztwa nr 42813 w sprawie zaginięcia w okręgu kalinińskim w latach 1939-1940 polskich jeńców wojennych i cywilów. Str. 369-370.

Attachment no. 2 – Decision dated 6 June 1990 by the Regional Prosecutor’s Office of the USSR in Kalinin initiating the investigation no. 42813 into the disappearance of Polish prisoners of war and civilians in the territory of the Kalinin Oblast between 1939-40. Pages 369-370.

370

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

371

Załącznik nr 3 – Dwie Decyzje Głównej Prokuratury Wojskowej ZSRR z 27 września 1990 r. o przejęciu śledztwa nr 189001 Prokuratury Okręgowej ZSRR w Charkowie. Str. 371-372.

Attachment no. 3 – Two decisions dated 27 September 1990 by the Chief Military Prosecutor’s Office of the USSR to take over the investigation no. 189001 conducted by the Regional Prosecutor’s Office of the USSR in Kharkov. Pages 371-372.

372

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

373

Załącznik nr 4 – Decyzja Prokuratury Okręgowej ZSRR w Twerze z 12 listopada 1990 r. o przekazaniu śledztwa nr 42813 Głównej Prokuraturze Wojskowej ZSRR. Str. 373-374.

Attachment no. 4 – Decision dated 12 November 1990 by the Regional Prosecutor’s Office of the USSR in Tver to hand over the investigation no. 42813 to the Chief Military Prosecutor’s Office of the USSR. Pages 373-374.

374

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

375

Załącznik nr 5 – Wniosek Głównej Prokuratury Wojskowej ZSRR z 25 grudnia 1990 r. o udzielenie przez władze Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej pomocy prawnej w ramach radzieckiego śledztwa w sprawie Zbrodni Katyńskiej. Str. 375-381.

Attachment no. 5 – Request dated 25 December 1990 by the Chief Military Prosecutor’s Office of the USSR on the Republic of Poland’s legal assistance in conducting the USSR’s investigation into the Katyń Crime. Pages 375-381.

376

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

377

378

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

379

380

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

381

382

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka

Stanowisko Rządu RP w sprawie Janowiec i inni p. Rosji przedstawione podczas rozprawy 6 października 2011 r. przed Izbą Europejskiego Trybunału Praw Człowieka w odpowiedzi na pytania Trybunału sformułowane w piśmie z 18 sierpnia 2011 r.

Oral Presentation by the Government of Poland to a Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights in the case Janowiec and Others v. Russia at a hearing on 6 October 2011 in reply to the Court’s written questions dated 18 August 2011 Answer to question 1 1.

The case raises several issues of fundamental importance for the scope of the Court’s jurisdiction ratione temporis under Article 2 in cases in which a death of a person occurred prior to the date of entry into force of the Convention in respect of the respondent State, with subsequent proceedings which have been conducted, at least partly, after that date.

This case will also wield significant meaning for the determination of the ambit in which States are to cooperate with the Court on the grounds of Article 38 of the Convention.

2. In the case of Blečić v. Croatia, the Court established general principles which should be applied with respect to its jurisdiction ratione temporis. For the cases introduced under Article 2, these principles have been developed in the case Šilih v. Slovenia, and further confirmed in the jurisprudence of the Court, wherein the Court has explicated that the standards and criteria established in the Blečić case are of a general character; which would require the special nature of rights laid down in Article 2 of the Convention to be taken into account.

3.

The Court took this opportunity to reiterate that Article 2 is among the very fundamental provisions in the Convention enshrining the very basic values of democratic societies – the foundations of the Council of Europe. Consequently, the Court was to conclude that it has – under certain circumstances – the jurisdiction ratione temporis to examine complaints related to deaths having taken place beyond its temporal jurisdiction stricto sensu, be it for the sake of enhancing respect for the principle of legal certainty.

4. Since, in the observations already submitted to the Court on 14 April 2009 and 29 July 2010, detailed remarks were made on the autonomous nature of procedural obligations under Article 2, here we would like to focus on the arguments conducive to include this case in the Court’ jurisdiction under Article 2.

5. To start with, establishing the Court’s temporal jurisdiction implies ascertaining facts, acts/or omissions which took place after 5 May 1998 – the date of the Convention’s entry into force for the Russian Federation. Criminal proceedings No. 159 were initiated in 1990 and discontinued in 2004, with a significant part of the proceeding conducted after

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

383

the critical date. Therefore, the Court’s competence shall include this part of proceedings.

6.

Furthermore, establishing the Court’s temporal competence requires the existence of a certain link between the death and the Convention’s entry into force. Pursuant to the Court’s own case-law, there ought to exist a ”genuine connection” between two dates.1 The Court is to take into account elements of both legal and factual nature, paying due attention that it “would not exclude that in certain circumstances the connection could also be based on the need to ensure that the guarantees and the underlying values of the Convention are protected in a real and effective manner.”2

7. As it has been sustained, the following factual and legal circumstances are to be taken into consideration for ascertaining the existence of the abovementioned “genuine connection.” a) The prosecution in the Katyń Crime cases was initiated in 1990 and discontinued in 2004. Any earlier steps towards it would have been improcedent and impossible for political reasons, namely the direct involvement of the USSR’s leaders – which could not have been addressed until the collapse of the USSR; thus these steps were undertaken as soon as it was possible; b) The steps have been initiated ex officio, upon the initiative of the Soviet authorities and have been pursued by the Russian Federation six years after the ratification of the Convention; c) There is a substantial number of persons having a legitimate interest to find out all the reasons and circumstances of this Crime. We shall submit information (under the answers supra to the Court’s question 3) on the activities undertaken by persons whose next of kin would have allegedly perished under Soviet occupation in 1940, as well as on the motivation for such undertakings. This is therefore a case where, notwithstanding a considerable lapse of time, there would be a reducing number of victims to be entitled to claim an investigation or to complain to the Court on the lack of and/or on the inconclusive nature of the investigation; d) There are ample possibilities to conduct investigations, proof of which shall be provided (see, submissions supra to the Court’s question 2); e) The documentation on the Katyń Crime is extensive and conclusive on the legal nature of the Katyń Crime being a massive and multiple delictum iuris gentium, e.g. having all the features of crime in terms of today’s international law.

8.

The aforementioned facts and acts corroborating the existence in this case of a link between the deaths, on one part, and the Convention’s ratification and the Russian authorities’ activities, on the other, would not be the unique ground for the Court’s jurisdiction.

In our opinion, such jurisdiction is further constituted on the grounds of the humanitarian clause, in the terms of the Court contained in the Šilih judgment referring the State’s obligation “to ensure that the guarantees and the underlying values of the Convention 1

2

Šilih v. Slovenia, judgment of 9.04.2009, appl. no. 71463/01, § 163. Šilih v. Slovenia, op.cit.

384

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka are protected in a real and effective manner.”3 The Katyń Crime being a delictum iuris gentium, the terms do apply accordingly.

9. Moreover, we would like to draw the Court’s attention to the notion of ‘continuing situations’ which best grasps the temporal dimension of cases of this kind. Indeed, the figure of ‘continuing violations’ taken into consideration in the recent ICJ case4 seems particularly apt to elucidate the normative nature of the interdependence between fait generateur and the effets in this kind of situation. Would it please the Court, despite its position in Varnava and Others v. Turkey, to take into account the proper circumstances of the Katyń Crime as to the lack of information, deliberate concealment, and obfuscation, which make these ICJ considerations appropriate to our case?

10. For this case purposes the Government does not see it mandatory to debate of the Katyń Crime’s possible classifying as a crime against humanity and all crime of genocide as it fully meets all the legal premises to classify it as a war crime. Such a classification, today established in the law of armed conflicts under Article 85 of the Additional Protocol I to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, did underlie the international law, as a concept, ever since the establishment of its 19th-century customary rules (such as the Lieber Code, the Petersburg Declaration 1868, the Draft Brussels Declaration 1974 and 1898 and 1907 Hague Conventions). Thus, customary law and international literature had, already at the time, circumscribed the principal elements of war crimes.5 The Nuremberg Principles, the Nuremberg and Tokyo jurisprudence, together with the 1949 Geneva Conventions and the 1977 Additional Protocols, have endowed this concept with its definite normative profile, further completed and extended by the pertinent provisions of the 1993 Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (Articles 5 and 6), and especially the 1998 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (Articles 7 and 8). In light of all these instruments, the events referred to as the Katyń Crime must definitely be qualified as a war crime, irrespective of the formal treaty engagement thereto on the part of the Soviet Union. The first proof of this is the fact that the Soviet Union has in practice fully acknowledged the status of combatants of the Polish prisoners of war. This has been constantly proven by the application to the combatants of special Soviet Rules on the Treatment of POWs, as devised on 19 September 1939, and the creation by the NKVD of a special POW administrative body to implement these rules.

The Soviet Union has never since questioned this fact.

3

Šilih v. Slovenia, last alinea of paragraph 163.

Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy: Greece intervening), Order of 29 April 2009, I.C.J. Reports 2009, p.136, Dissenting Opinion of Judge A. A. Cancado Trindade, par. 74. See also para.

75 and in particular 84 pasin.

5 Ch. Greenwood, Report on International Humanitarian Law published under commission from the Netherlands Government as part of the Centenary of the First Hague Peace Conference, published in F. Kalshoven (ed.) The Centennial of the First International Peace Conference, Kluwer 2000, p. 253. See also R. Kolb’s comments ICJ year 2011, CR 2011/20 Verbatim record of public sitting of 15 September 2011 in the case concerning Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy: Greece intervening), p. 43: see also Document No. 81, US Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, US v. Wilhelm von Leeb et al., in The United Nations War Crime Commission, Law reports of Trials of War Crimes, Vol. XII, 1949, pp. 86-89.

4

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

385

The Government would like to recall that the Court has recently given its attention to the issue of treatment of POWs and customary character of the relevant rules in the case Kononov v. Latvia.6 Under the Nuremberg and Tokyo Rules, this war crime could to the same extent also be understood as a breach of ius ad bellum treaties such as the 1932 Pact of Non-aggression between Poland and the USSR (extended until 1945 in 1934).

11. There is also no need in this case to re-examine the Russian Federation’s own express admissions of the Katyń Crime’s legal qualification. The Government would like to draw the Court’s attention to the words of the USSR’s Deputy Chief Prosecutor at the Nuremberg Trial, Yuri Pokrovski, who spoke in 1946 of these acts, saying “one of the most important criminal acts for which the major war criminals are responsible was the mass execution of Polish prisoners of war, shot in the Katyń Forest near Smolensk (…).”7 It should be remembered that Soviet propaganda kept attributing these acts to the Nazi Germans.

It is also noteworthy to quote the Russian Duma’s Statement of 26 November 2010 where it is expressly stated that the “mass extermination of Polish citizens” was carried out at the direct orders of Stalin and other Soviet leaders.8 12. Taking note that the facts have been established as such and not deeming it necessary to proceed any further with the re-examination of the Court’s competence under substantive limb of the Convention’s Article 2, we thus consider the Court’s own words of paramount importance, when it says that “the principles underlying the Convention cannot be interpreted and applied in a vacuum. The Court must also take into account any relevant rules of international law when examining questions concerning its jurisdiction.”9 The Court should thus interpret the obligations of a State under the Convention in light of its obligations under international law. And the Court may conclude that a violation of the Convention also infringes other international corpora iuris. The classification of the Katyń Crime as a crime under international law would be therefore highly relevant to determine the nature and extent of Russian Government’s responsibility for the subsequent denial of justice through the failure to prosecute.

13. We would like once again to recall the customary weight of the Fourth Hague Convention of 1907 and the Regulations attached, as confirmed by the Nuremberg Principles, as well as the impact of the Martens’ clause. There are also arguments that, in absence of express provisions on the criminal responsibility in the 1899 and the 1907 Hague Conventions, violations of the laws and customs of war were being looked upon as delicta iuris gentium at the time of their adoption.10 6

Kononov v. Latvia, judgment of 17.05.2010, appl. no. 36376/04, §§ 200-204.

Nuremberg Trial Proceedings vol. 7, p. 425 (fifty-ninth day, 14 February 1946, morning session).

8 Full text of the Russian Duma’s Statement of 26 November 2010 was submitted to the Court by the Russian Federation on 9 December 2010.

9 Agim Behrami and Bekir Behrami v. France (appl. no. 71412/01) and Saramati v. France, Germany and Norway (appl. no. 78166/01) decision of 2.05.2007, § 122.

10 Ch. Greenwood, Report …, op. cit.

7

386

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka

14. Aware that the responsibility of a State under the European Convention is not unlimited in time, we would like to refer to the Court’s jurisprudence, stating that a procedural obligation “binds the State throughout the period in which the authorities can reasonably be expected to take measures with an aim to elucidate the circumstances of death and establish responsibility for it.”11 15. In the interpretation of the Convention, considerable emphasis has been put on the realization of the object and purpose of that treaty as being instrumental to the ‘protection of individual human rights’ and the maintenance and promotion of ‘the ideals and values of democratic society’.12 Any international crime would be incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention. The Court itself reiterated the special duty of States to prosecute such crimes, emphasizing it in a number of cases, starting with the case of Brecknell v. UK, where it stated that “there is little ground to be overly prescriptive as regards the possibility of an obligation to investigate unlawful killings arising many years after the events since the public interest in obtaining the prosecution and conviction of perpetrators is firmly recognized.”13 War crimes and crimes against humanity are obviously among these obligations.

In milestone cases of the Court’s jurisprudence, e.g. Streletz, Kessler and Krenz v. RFN, Korberly v. Hungary, and recently Kononov v. Latvia, the Court corroborated the State’s duty to bring criminal proceedings against persons who have committed in the past acts which would amount to war crimes, crimes against humanity and the like. In particular, the Court recognized that ”the successor courts cannot be criticised for applying and interpreting the legal provisions in force at the material time during the former regime, but in the light of the principles governing a State subject to the rule of law and having regard to the core principles on which the Convention system is built,”14 including the doctrine of effet utile interpretation.15

11 Šilih v. Slovenia, § 157. See also Brecknell v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 27.11.2007, appl. no.

32457/04, §§ 66-72, and Hackett v. the United Kingdom, dec. of 10.05.2005, appl. no. 34698/04.

12 Preamble to the European Convention on Human Rights.

13 Brecknell v. the United Kingdom, op.cit., § 69.

14 Kononov v. Latvia, op.cit., § 241.

15 Golder v. UK, judgment of 21.02.1975, appl. no. 4451/70 as well as Loizidou v. Turkey, judgment of 23.03.1995, appl. no. 15318/89. See inter alia also P. Pustorino, L’interpretazione della Convenzione europea dei diritti dell’uomo nella prassi della Commissione e della Corte di Strasburgo, Napoli 1998, p.

39; See also, Dissenting opinion of Judge C. Trindade to Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Georgia v. Russian Federation), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2011, p.70, para. 191: “The hermeneutics of human rights treaties, faithful to the general rule of interpretation bona fides of treaties (Article 31(1) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969 and 1986), bears in mind the three component elements of the text in the current meaning, the context, and the object and purpose of the treaty at issue, as well as the nature of the treaty (…) Underlying the general rule of treaty interpretation is the principle ut res magis valeat quam pereat (the so-called effet utile) whereby States Parties to human rights treaties ought to secure to the conventional provisions the appropriate effects at the domestic level; this principle applies not only in relation to substantive norms of those treaties, but also in relation to procedural norms (…).

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

387

16. As regards the notion of “continuing violations” and its bearing on this case, may we refer the Court to our observations infra in para. 9.

17. The improper administration of justice, including denial of access to courts or adequate procedures, constitutes a denial of justice. In relation to cases concerning the right to life, the denial of justice consists in the failure to investigate or prosecute the perpetrators of the crime. Such failure extending over a long period of time undermines the right to the realization of justice, assured by the rule of law at both the national and international levels. The rule of law is embodied in the impartial and objective functioning of the courts and of prosecutors warranting equality of all before the law. These guarantees are enshrined in the Convention to which the Court rightly refers as “a constitutional instrument of European public order (ordre public).”16 18. The Court also finds in its jurisprudence that the obligation for a State to prosecute shall be drawn not only from Article 2 of the Convention, but also from the applicable laws and customs of war, since the procedural scope of Article 2 involves the State’s obligation to start and carry out an effective investigation even when the death took place before the critical date.17 Here, the fact that international crimes have no statute of limitations has its consequence in light of the Convention. With regard to these crimes, the procedural obligation thus possesses a continuous and substantive nature. Hence, the State has an ongoing responsibility under general international law to make all reasonable efforts to bring the perpetrators to justice.

19. The duty to investigate is binding in the abovementioned cases, and certainly applies to international crimes. We are fully aware that it would not be possible or perhaps even desirable that all events occurring in the distant past be a venue to the application of the aforementioned principle, as no one can be expected to do the impossible (Ultra posse nemo tenetur). Awareness of this only reinforces our conviction that in this case, the Court is endowed with jurisdiction and that there exists a specific duty to prosecute this war crime.

20. Moreover, the admission of the Court’s jurisdiction in this case would tangibly contribute to the growing efforts to fight international impunity, since the bona fide compliance by the States with their procedural duties resulting inter alia from Article 2 certainly seems the most effective way to achieve this.18 To sum up, in order to determine the Court’s jurisdiction ratione tempore for the case sub judice, one should underscore the following: – there exist circumstances de iure and de facto establishing the link between the death, the entry into force of the Convention and the subsequent activities of the Russian authorities; 16

Loizidou v. Turkey (Preliminary objections), op.cit., § 75. Šilih v. Slovenia, op.cit., § 159.

18 See, also the Guidelines of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on eradicating impunity for serious human rights violations, adopted on 30 March 2011.

17

388

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka – the crimes perpetrated in 1940 possess the characteristics of delicta iuris gentium, entailing the special duty of States to investigate and prosecute the perpetrators; – one would risk committing ‘denial of justice’ by failing to undertake such investigations;19 – the continuous character of such failure would aggravate the authorities’ responsibility.

Consequently, the circumstances of the case fully confirm our submissions that the Court has temporal jurisdiction to assess the respondent State’s compliance with its procedural obligations under Article 2 of the Convention.

Answer to question 2 1.

Anxious to meet the Court’s questions in the most diligent way, the Polish Government regrets to reiterate that the Russian Katyń investigation has not been conducted effectively.

In our previous observations on this, we already pointed out several instances of this lack of effectiveness, and we wish to add several new elements here.

2.

The first concerns the fact that the applicants have been given contradictory information about their next of kin’s whereabouts: on the one hand, the Russian Prosecutor’s Office confirmed their execution in 1940, whilst on the other hand, the Russian judiciary considered them missing persons.

3.

The Russian prosecution failed to undertake all possible steps towards gathering evidence, and, at a certain, point abandoned any and all autonomous activity thereto. a) The forensic endeavours of the Russian side have been too haphazard to be conducive to any possibility of establishing a convincing body count. b) Objections can be also raised with regard to the fact that Russian prosecution had given up any autonomous endeavour to collect such evidence, passively awaiting cooperation on behalf of Belarus and Ukraine to that respect. c) After 1998 no hearings of applicants were held, in spite of the fact that the applicants themselves addressed the Russian prosecution to obtain information on their next of kin. To give an example, in 1998, Krystyna Krzyszkowiak filed a motion with the Russian Prosecutor’s Office in which she requested information about her executed father. She informed the Russian Prosecutor’s Office that on 10 July 1995, Polish experts doing exhumation work in Mednoye, dug up a set of visiting cards with her father’s name from a death pit full of human relics. The Russian Prosecutor’s Office did not question Krystyna Krzyszkowiak in connection with this fact nor did it request the Polish authorities to provide it with the results of the Polish exhumation work in Mednoye.20

4.

19

This leads us to conclude that the Russian prosecution erroneously assessed the evidence it collected or received from the Polish justice system.

R. Bernhardt (ed), Encyclopedia of Public International Law, Amsterdam 1992, vol. I, pp. 1007-1010.

Krystyna Krzyszkowiak’s motion of 1998 was submitted to the Court by the Polish Government as an attachment to their pleadings of 15 September 2011.

20

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

389

Namely: The number of persons executed by shooting was erroneously put at 1803 and the number of indentified persons at 22, which contradicts official Russian documents collected in the so-called Set no. 1 which speak of the shooting of no less than 21,857 Polish POWs by the NKVD in 1940.

5.

Regarding the position of the Russian Federation before the Court, we fail to understand la fin-de non recevoir on the part of the Russian prosecution towards evidence that was collected by Polish experts and handed over to the Russian Federation in response to the Russian request for legal assistance.

Namely: It transpires from the Russian position presented to the Court that Russian authorities refused to admit as evidence: Polish documents concerning the results of exhumation in Katyń in 1943, and a 1947 judgment of a Polish court in Aleksandrów Kujawski declaring Stanisław Mielecki, one of the applicants’ next of kin, dead in absentia.

6.

The Russian Federation also errs in believing that no documents concerning the socalled criminal cases against Polish prisoners of war have remained, inferring from it that it is not possible to carry out a legal rehabilitation of the victims of the Katyń Crime.

Namely: In a joint Polish-Russian publication of state archives dating from the 1990s, documents have remained that point to legal grounds of reprisals against one of the prisoners of war from the camp in Ostashkov – Stefan Olejnik, a policeman. Some of the next of kin were also prisoners in the camp in Ostashkov.21 7.

The Katyń Crime was erroneously classified. It transpires from the Russian judgments that the Katyń Crime was characterised as a crime committed by officials – abuse of power (abus de pouvoir), whereas the Katyń Crime is a war crime and/or crime against humanity whose prosecution is not limited by statute.

Namely: In early 1990’s, the Russian prosecutors questioned two NKVD functionaries D. Tokariev and M. Syromiatnikov, direct participants of the Katyń Crime. Between 19901992, M. Syromiatnikov testified how exactly Polish POWs were executed in NKVD dungeons, where their bodies had been buried and who had taken part in this crime.22 These testimonies unequivocally point to the nature of the perpetrated crime.

8.

The Russian criminal investigation was discontinued without providing explanations of many important circumstances as requested by the Polish side.

Namely: On 27 August 2001, the Minister of Justice – Attorney General addressed the Russian Federation with a specific request for information and to carry out a number of actions.

In response dated 12 February 2001, the Russian Federation provided a curt reply that all actions had been carried out as regards the case and that the Polish side allegedly was in possession of full knowledge about the Russian investigation.

21

W. Materski, W. Gusaczenko (ed.), Katyń Dokumenty Zbrodni. Jeńcy nie wypowiedzianej wojny, Warszawa 1995, vol. 1, pp. 360-362.

22 W. Materski, W. Gusaczenko (ed.), Katyń Dokumenty Zbrodni. Zagłada, Warszawa 1998, vol. 2, pp. 472-500.

390 9.

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka Also, the applicants were denied the right to effectively participate in the investigation. They were not granted the status of an injured party, despite the fact that all of them had factual and legal interest in participating in this investigation.

Namely: From the ratification of the Convention in 1998 by the Russian Federation until the discontinuation in 2004 of the Katyń investigation, at least several applicants had applied to the Russian prosecution requesting an explanation of the circumstances surrounding the death of their next of kin: They were Witomiła Wołk-Jezierska, Krystyna Krzyszkowiak, Jerzy Janowiec, Antoni Trybowski and the recently deceased Krzysztof Malewicz, among others. None of the applicants were granted the injured party status pursuant to Article 42 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure.

10. Denying all applicants injured party status meant that they could not benefit from guarantees provided for in the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure. The Russian Federation’s conduct represents “denial of justice”. The principle of access to court is an integral part of customary international law relating to the treatment of foreigners. It provides that an individual who was injured in a foreign state by the authorities of such state has to be given the opportunity to bring his or her case before a court or a competent administrative body. Denial of “justice” triggers off state liability.23 11. The Government of the Republic of Poland wishes to make the point that the Russian Federation has wrongly assessed the public interest in uncovering a crime of the totalitarian past and the private interest of the applicants in discovering the fate of their murdered next-of-kin. Keeping a part of the Russian investigation’s files secret, including the decision of 21 September 2004 that discontinued the investigation, means that the applicants may never learn all the circumstances surrounding the death of their next of kin.

The majority of the applicants are very advanced in their age. One of them, Krzysztof Malewicz, recently passed away.

12. Poland tries to ensure that the applicants can effectively take part in explaining the circumstances surrounding the deaths of their next of kin in a Polish criminal investigation into the Katyń Crime. On 30 November 2004, the Polish authorities instituted their own investigation into the Katyń Crime. The investigation deals with the wilful deprivation of human life of circa 21,768 Polish citizens – POWs and civilians by state functionaries of the USSR – which constitutes a war crime and a crime against humanity.

13. The aim of the investigation is to fully explain the circumstances of the case, that is: to establish the names of all the victims, to identify the as yet unknown places of their execution and burial, to draw up a full list of persons who, under Polish law, enjoy injured party rights in these proceedings, to establish the names of all the persons involved in taking and enforcing the decision of 5 March 1940, to determine the scope of criminal liability of each of them and, if feasible, to bring the criminal offenders who are alive to justice.

23

A.O. Adede, “A Fresh Look at the Meaning of the Doctrine of Denial of Justice under International Law”, Can.Y.B.Int’l L. 73 (1976), pp. 89-91, and J. Paulsson, Denial of Justice in International Law, Cambridge 2005, pp. 134-146.

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

391

14. The Polish investigation involves a number of actions carried out at home and abroad, the aim of which is to collect extensive evidence. a) Until now a total of 2713 witnesses, including several applicants who are appearing in this case before the Court, have been questioned. The majority of those questioned are members of the families of the murdered persons. Witnesses are questioned both in Poland and abroad, where hearings are organised by members of the Polish diplomatic and consular staff or in the framework of international legal assistance. b) Documents and other evidence that could significantly bear upon the subject matter of the proceedings. In connection with the fact that the Polish authorities are in possession of 12 skulls exhumed in 1991 during exhumation works in Kharkov, DNA tests were commissioned to identify the human relics serving as evidence. c) Requests for international legal assistance were addressed to five countries: the Russian Federation, Belarus, Ukraine, the Federal Republic of Germany and the United States of America.

15. The Polish authorities have twice applied to the Russian authorities for legal assistance in their criminal proceedings, requesting that they be provided access to all the case files of the Chief Military Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation’s investigation No. 159 into the Katyń Crime and to the decision to discontinue this investigation arguing that the evidence collected during this investigation is of great importance. a) Poland first applied on 8 March 2005. In response to the application, the Chief Military Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation invited three prosecutors and a historian to Moscow from 9 until the 21 of October, 2005. During this visit, the Russian authorities made available to the Polish side only 67 volumes of the case files concerning the Katyń Crime case No. 159. They were examined and the relevant litigation documents were drawn up. The Russian side did not agree to make a Xeroxcopies of the analyzed documents. The prosecutors from the Institute of National Remembrance were not provided access to all the evidence collected in proceedings No. 159, on the argument that some of the evidence was classified as secret. The decision to discontinue investigation No. 159 dated 21 September 2004 that was not made available was also been classified as secret. b) On 30 September 2009, a second application was addressed to the Russian Federation’s authorities. It again requested legal assistance in criminal proceedings carried out by the Polish authorities consisting in full disclosure to the prosecutors of all the investigation files and the decision to discontinue it. In response, the Russian side handed over, in several tranches, a total of 148 volumes of copies of files of the Russian investigation No. 159 for the Polish investigation files. The contents of some of these documents had not been previously known to the Polish side. The first batch consisting of 67 volumes was handed over on 8 May 2010. These files are identical with the unclassified documentation of 67 volumes of case files No. 159, made available in October 2005 in Moscow to the prosecutors of the Institute of National Remembrance, the contents of which they examined, but could not copy. In the three successive tranches, 20, 50 and 11 volumes of certified by the Russian side Xerox-copies of documents from investigation No. 159 were handed over. At the present stage of the investigation, the examination of these

392

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka

files, with the help of sworn translators, has been concluded and documents have been selected for translation.

16. The copies of documents that were handed over by the Russians are fundamentally important for the investigation carried out by the Polish authorities in that they represent certified evidence, which if presented in its complete version would enable us to make findings about the factual situation: the organisation of the Polish POW camps, the actual number of interred POWs, the living conditions, documents evidencing preparations for transportation of POWs to places of execution as part of the so-called “de-crowding of camps”, their particulars and dates of their deportation from NKVD camps or prisons, the circumstances under which the crime was committed and the particulars of the NKVD functionaries who took part in the transport, murder and burial of the bodies of the murdered persons, finding all the burial grounds of the victims, etc.

Answer to question 3 Did the Russian authorities subject the applicants to a form of degrading treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention in connection with the applicants’ attempts to obtain information about the fate of their relatives and the way in which the Russian authorities treated those enquiries?

1. In our opinion, a whole range of circumstances surrounding this case points to the fact that the applicants were subjected to inhuman treatment in the course of proceedings carried out by the Russian authorities. The long years of investigation that was discontinued in 2004, futile attempts at obtaining even the most basic information about the fate of their next of kin, all this leads us to argue that the guarantee under Article 3 of the Convention was breached with respect to the applicants, a group that includes people of old age.

2. At this point, the Government would like to share information with the Court about associations active in Poland and abroad whose aim is to disseminate information about the Katyń Crime. The need to spread this information is deeply rooted in the society. It will also help to better understand the sufferings inflicted upon the applicants as a result of Russian authorities’ actions.

3.

The Katyń Crime was an occulted crime which, for political reasons, could not have been seriously addressed before 1989.24 The only official account of the 1940 events permitted by the Soviet and Polish propaganda put the blame for the crime on the III Reich.

4. Anyone questioning this version of events suffered serious reprisals and it was not until 1989 that associations grouping relatives of the victims, the so-called Katyń Families were allowed to organise themselves in Poland. Now, this community has grown to several thousand members. The descendants of the murdered persons and the very few spouses or siblings still alive today play the most active role. Over time, the younger generations joined their ranks. Association members exchange information that could be helpful in 24

See e.g. “Katyń, A Crime Without Punishment”, A.M.Cienciala, N.S.Lebiedeva, W.Materski (ed.), Yale Univeristy Press, 2007.

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

393

uncovering the truth about the Katyń Crime, are active in helping to identify and bring to justice those who are responsible, get hold of documents, identify other places where Polish POWs that had not been identified in Katyń were killed and buried. These persons also take a very active part in the Katyń investigation carried out by the Polish authorities.

The existence of many institutions, at home and abroad, grouping relatives of the victims demonstrates just how important it is for the family members and the Polish and other societies to learn the truth.

Answer to question 4 As regards the Russian Government’s refusal to furnish a copy of the decision of 21 September 2004 requested by the Court, was their reference to the provisions of national law preventing confidential information from being communicated to international organisations compatible with their obligations under Article 38 of the Convention, read in the light of Article 27 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (“A party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty”)?

1.

Following the observations we had the honour of submitting to the Court on 15 of September 2011, we would like to complement these observations by re-focusing on the Russian Federation’s erroneous interpretation of the scope of admissible domestic limitations to the State’s entitlement to confidentiality in relation to Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.

2.

Firstly, it must be emphasized that the Russian Federation may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to comply with the Convention.

3. Invoking provisions of internal law as justification for the failure to conform to the Convention constitutes an infringement of Article 27 of the Vienna Convention and of the customary rules codified therein. It also contravenes the principle of primacy of international engagements over domestic ones confirmed in the jurisprudence of the Permanent Court of International Justice and the International Court of Justice, as well as in prevailing doctrine.25 4.

The obligation to take all necessary measures in order to comply with the Court’s request to furnish certain documents is not only required by international law, but equally results from Article 15 (4) of the 1993 Russian Constitution, where in case of the conflict between domestic legal provisions and international legal norms, international law shall have priority.

5. It is of course not up to the Polish Government to determine the manner in which the Russian Federation should fulfil its obligations under the Convention, or to select measures for implementing international law at the domestic level, so we wish only to remind to the Court of the Russian Federation’s general commitment to adapting its domestic legislation accordingly, as stated inter alia in the Permanent Court of International Jus25

See, inter alia, the PCIJ’s judgment of 1923 in SS Wimbledon case, PCIJ Reports 1923, Series A, no. 1, p. 30.

394

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka tice’s advisory opinion in the Exchange of Greek and Turkish Populations case as a “selfevident” principle.26

6. Secondly, it is our understanding that the Russian Federation cannot invoke the provisions on the confidentiality of its domestic laws as a reason for its refusal to cooperate with the Court.

7.

We take that the European Court has full capacity under Article 38 of the Convention to address written summons (subpoenae duces tecum) and oral ones (subpoena ad testificandum) to state parties in order to obtain information. The duty to discharge the general obligation of cooperation with the European Court by providing concrete documents is for the State all the more compelling when the Court instructs, in advance, on the admissible manner of protecting state secrets from unauthorized divulgation.27

8.

Thus, it is the established practice of international tribunals to determine that documents vital for determining the factual circumstances of the case must be provided by the state upon the tribunal’s specific request, even though they may contain state secrets.28

9. As for the case, the obligation to cooperate with the European Court and to produce the requested data even if containing states secrets, is to be adequately weighed in proportion to the very nature of the fundamental human rights and freedoms at stake, the crimes themselves – e.g. war crimes and crimes against humanity – and with the obligation to fully investigate the loss of human life, as a consequence of these crimes.

10. Thirdly, the Court has certainly identified a number of situations where there exists a continuous and actual public interest in maintaining the confidentiality of materials and/or decisions in domestic proceedings. However, this does not authorize the State to refuse to produce vital documents to the Court. The Russian Federation’s refusal may otherwise amount to falling into jeopardy with the requisites of the maxim nemo potest commodum capere de iniuria sua propria, for this evidence can obviously not be obtained if the State fails to cooperate.29 26

See PCIJ’s advisory opinion of 1925, Exchange of Greek and Turkish Populations, PCIJ Reports 1925, Series B, no. 10, p. 20 27 See, inter alia, Nolan and K. v. Russia, judgment of 12.02.2009, appl. no. 2512/04 § 51, when the Court instructed the RF on the possibility of applying Rules 33 § 1 and 2 of Rules of Court.

28 See, inter alia, Godínez Cruz v. Honduras, judgment of 20.01.1989, Inter-Am.Ct.H.R (Ser. C) No. 5 1989. See also Prosecutor v. Tihomir Blaskic, where the International Criminal Court for former Yugoslavia in its decision of 1997 ordered Croatia to comply with the Court’s motions regardless Croatia’s reliance on national security interests in tailoring its cooperation with the Court. In its reasoning the Court underlined that as a criminal tribunal it “has been mandated to prosecute serious violations of international humanitarian law” and therefore the ICTY has been “fundamentally concerned with issues which may involve the national security of States”. The Court further stressed that “a unilateral right of a State to withhold information necessary for the proceedings on national security grounds would prejudice the capacity of the International Tribunal to ensure a fair trial”.

29 J. A. Frowein, W. Peukert, Europaische Menschenrechts Konwention. Kommentar, 2 ed. Kehl-Strasbourg 1996, p. 132. See also Velasquez Rodriguez Case, judgment of 29.07.1988, Inter-Am.Ct.H.R. (Ser. C) No. 4 (1988).

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

395

Wniosek Rządu RP z 11 lipca 2012 r. o przekazanie sprawy Janowiec i inni p. Rosji do Wielkiej Izby Europejskiego Trybunału Praw Człowieka Request by the Government of Poland dated 11 July 2012 for referral of the case Janowiec and Others v. Russia to the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights With reference to your letter dated 10 July 2012 informing to the Government about the applicant’s request for referral to the Grand Chamber, the Government of the Republic of Poland is pleased to inform you that it supports this requests for the reasons stated herein.

1.

Article 43 § 2 of the Convention provides that a request for referral should be accepted, if the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or the Protocols thereto or a serious issue of general importance. The explanatory report on Protocol No. 11 notes that these conditions should be applied “in a strict sense”, which implies that a request for referral should be granted in cases which are, at least to some extent, exceptional.

2.

In the opinion of the Government of the Republic of Poland, the case at issue meets all the requirements of the Convention and of the Court’s practice and may, therefore, be referred to the Grand Chamber.

3.

In the opinion of the Government of the Republic of Poland, the case presents a serious issue of interpretation of the Convention. The Court, in its judgment of 16 April, 2012, ruled on the scope of the Court’s temporal jurisdiction in connection with the complaint under Article 2 of the Convention of a violation of a procedural obligation, considering that the deaths occurred 58 years before the date of ratification of the Convention and proceedings to elucidate the circumstances of the deaths were instituted prior to the critical date and lasted for 6 years after the ratification. The commitment of a crime under international law was what caused the need to conduct an investigation. In the Government’s opinion, the legal assessment of the case at issue raises a question of importance not yet decided by the Court and of importance for future cases and for the development of the Court’s case-law. Moreover, the Government believes that the case presents a serious issue of general importance in respect of Article 2 and – in a wider context – the limits of a state’s liability for committing a crime under international law.

4.

In determining its jurisdiction under Article 2, the Court referred to the established case law, confirmed with the judgment in the case Šilih v. Slovenia which ruled that the procedural obligation to carry out an effective investigation under Article 2 has evolved into a separate and autonomous obligation binding the State even when death occurred before the critical date. However, considering the principle of legal certainty, the Court’s temporal jurisdiction over compliance with the procedural obligation under Article 2 in re-

396

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka spect of deaths that occurred before the critical date is not open-ended. First, it is limited to procedural acts and/or omissions occurring after the date of ratification. Secondly, there must exist a genuine connection between the death and the entry into force of the Convention in the respondent State. In the Šilih judgment the Court explained that the notion of genuine connection means that a significant proportion of the procedural steps required by this provision have been or ought to have been carried out after the critical date. However, in this judgment the Court acknowledged that in certain circumstances the connection could also be based on the need to ensure that the guarantees and the underlying values of the Convention are protected in a real and effective manner. In judgments issued after the Šilih case, the Court has presented an interpretation of the term ‘connection’ between death and ratification of the Convention. These judgments addressed the issue of the period of time that elapsed between the death and the entry into force of the Convention in respect of the respondent State as well as proportion of the investigation carried out after the ratification date that would ensure compliance with the procedural obligation set out in Article 2.

5.

By applying Šilih v. Slovenia to the facts of this case and interpreting the second sentence of paragraph 163 in a way that is consistent with the case law, the Court failed to establish a genuine connection between the death and the entry into force of the Convention in respect of the respondent State. The Court stated that the death occurred a long time before the date of ratification and that a significant proportion of the Katyń investigation appears to have taken place prior to the ratification of the Convention by Russia.

6.

Subsequently, the Chamber referred to the possibility of a genuine connection based “on the need to ensure that the guarantees and the underlying values of the Convention are protected in a real and effective manner” – a clause from the third sentence of paragraph 163 of the case Šilih v. Slovenia. It should be noted that the “special circumstances clause” is interpreted by the Court as covering two elements. First, it has to be established that the event which caused death is different in all aspects from a common crime. It would have to be a war crime or a crime against humanity. Secondly, even when it comes to this category of crimes which are not subject to statutory limitation, a state’s obligation to prosecute them is not unlimited. In the opinion of the Court, this obligation is limited to cases of new evidence disclosed publicly that sheds light on committed crimes that a state which has ratified the Convention is obligated to prosecute. Only in such cases, the Court, under Article 2, is able to assess the fairness of an investigation conducted after the date of ratification of crimes committed before that date. In the context of these general considerations, the Chamber reaffirmed that the Katyń Crime was a war crime committed by the USSR authorities. Nonetheless, the Chamber argued that after the date of ratification, no new evidence had been disclosed or submitted, or new issues had been raised that would have “reinvigorated” the procedural obligation with respect to this crime. Therefore, the Chamber concluded that there were no elements that would have provided grounds for establishing a connection between the distant past when the crimes were committed and the period after the ratification of the Convention. Thus, no special circumstances had occurred that could be used to infer the existence of a connection between death and ratification, as required for establishing the Court’s jurisdiction.

7.

In the context of the above arguments, the Government wishes to draw the Court’s attention to the fact that the manner of interpretation of the ”special circumstances clause”

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

397

leads to an important question which, as yet, has not been decided by the Court and which carries significance for future cases and the Court’s case-law. Therefore, the case at issue merits the attention of the Grand Chamber. For the first time after the publication of its ruling in the case Šilih v. Slovenia, the Court examined whether the special circumstances of the case warranted the finding that the connection between the death and the ratification could be based on the need to ensure effective protection of the guarantees and underlying values of the Convention.

8.

The Chamber’s interpretation means in fact that even if the first condition is fulfilled i.e. the commitment of a crime under international law not subject to statutory limitation, decisive will be the circumstance of disclosing new evidence. It should be noted that this circumstance mainly depends on the effectiveness of the conducted investigation, because the disclosure of new evidence or circumstances depends in most cases on the activity of the authorities. The Chamber in its previous interpretations always treated the inactivity of the prosecuting authorities during an ongoing investigation as an aggravating circumstance for the government (cf. Jularić, judgment of 20.01.2011, appl. no. 20106/06, paras. 47-51). It further argued that “the delays in the investigation significantly diminished the prospect of its success, led to the loss of existing evidence and created substantial obstacles to the completion of the investigation, at least as regards the proper establishment of the facts of the case”. What is more, as it was assessed in the Chamber’s judgment, the unfairness of the protracted investigation exposed the applicants in the present case to degrading and inhuman treatment on the part of the Russian Federation authorities. Russian courts’ rulings not only questioned the previous positions of the Russian Prosecutor’s Office in relation to the fate of the applicants’ relatives, but – more importantly – negated basic historical facts that have been public knowledge for several decades. This leads us to argue that the Russian courts denied that the Katyń Crime was a crime under international law, including a war crime.

9.

For this reason, the interpretation of the “special circumstances clause” – in the opinion of the Polish government – should account for the special nature of the committed acts, which were crimes under international law, including a war crime, and for other elements that establish a connection between sometimes distant past and the post-ratification period, specifically the Russian Prosecutor’s Office’s real possibility of conducting an investigation. Seeing the case through these observations, it should be noted that a crime under international law which is not subject to statutory limitation was committed; the Russian investigation was conducted proprio motu both before and after the ratification of the Convention during the period from 1990 until 2004; real possibilities did exist to conduct proceedings to establish evidence – an issue which the Government of the Republic of Poland raised on many occasions in its pleadings; the Russian authorities remain mostly passive and when they have acted in an inconsistent and hostile way toward the applicants. Therefore, the present case is highly relevant to be treated as an exceptional case covered by the last sentence of paragraph 163 of the Šilih judgment.

10. Naturally the Government is aware of the fact that even in special circumstances, the Court’s temporal jurisdiction is not open-ended. However, when setting the limits of jurisdiction, real possibilities of conducting an investigation should be taken into account.

In the opinion of the Government of the Republic of Poland, such possibilities did exist until the very end of criminal investigation No. 159.

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka

398

11. Even if to follow the Court’s newly introduced requirement of the need of showing new elements that could revive a procedural obligation of the investigation, and therefore providing a bridge from the distant past into the post-ratification period, the Government would like to point out that such new elements did in fact exist in the instant case and therefore served as a bridge between the distant past and the recent post-ratification period. From 1998 until 2004, the Russian Prosecutor’s Office, as part of the Russian criminal investigation No. 159, carried out new procedural acts that produced new pieces of evidence and therefore revived a procedural obligation under Article 2 of the Convention. The Polish Government successively learned about these new acts. So far, the Russian Federation has handed over to the Polish side copies of 148 volumes of files of the Russian investigation, which, however, lack continuity. The last tranche of 11 volumes was handed over to the Polish side on 7 April 2011. The whole material was analyzed and partially translated in the course of the Polish investigation into the Katyń massacre.

The Government of the Republic of Poland wishes to use the material as evidence in the present case. Part of the evidence has already been presented by Poland in its letter to the Court of 15 September 2011 and during the oral hearing before the Court on 6 October 2011. The Government of the Republic of Poland wishes to note that the below-mentioned material came to light in the post-ratification period and is sufficiently weighty and compelling to warrant the Court’s temporal jurisdiction over the present case. i.

First, between 1998 and 2004 there was increased correspondence between the Russian and Ukrainian Prosecutor’s Offices in respect of the Katyń Crime. In 2002, the Ukrainian side handed over copious and important evidence containing, among others, the so-called Ukrainian Katyń List with over 3,400 names of Polish officers executed in 1940 by the NKVD in present-day Ukraine. This served as the grounds for the Russian Prosecutor’s Office to address a new request for legal assistance to the Ukrainian side in December 2002. Correspondence between Russia and Ukraine as well as Russian procedural acts taken on these grounds had been carried out until the conclusion of the Russian Katyń investigation.

ii.

Secondly, based on the evidence handed over by the Ukrainian side, the Russian Prosecutor’s Office undertook procedural acts consisting of an analysis of the evidence sent by Ukraine which it later formally added to the files of the Russian Katyń investigation. In 2004, towards the very end of the Russian investigation, the Russian Prosecutor’s Office sent to Russian personal data centres approximately 3,400 requests for information about the fates of over 3,400 Polish citizens whose names were on the Ukrainian Katyń List.

iii.

Third, from 1998 until 2004, on the initiative of the Polish side, the Russian Prosecutor’s Office took part in Polish-Russian bilateral consultations, the aim of which was to continue the cooperation of prosecutors from Russia and Poland into the Katyń Crime by clarifying its circumstances. Moreover, the Polish side requested the Russian side in writing to provide it with new information about the circumstances of the Katyń Crime. It should be assumed that the Russian Prosecutor’s Office’s replies to Polish requests had been preceded by specific procedural acts.

Otherwise the Russian side would not have displayed fairness in drafting them.

iv.

Fourth, throughout the investigation, the Russian Prosecutor’s Office received very

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

399

many requests for establishing the fate of the victims of the Katyń Crime. Between 1998 and 2004 alone, the Russian Prosecutor’s Office received at least 90 such requests. They were written by Polish citizens and relatives of the victims of the Katyń Crime, the Embassy of the Republic of Poland’s Consular Section in Moscow, the Belarus and Ukraine authorities, Russian state archives and the Russian Red Cross.

Among the authors of such requests were Krystyna Krzyszkowiak and Stanisław Malewicz, applicants in the present case before the Court. The Government of the Republic of Poland informed the Court about this fact during the hearing in Strasbourg. Thanks to these requests, the Russian Prosecutor’s Office received new evidence about at least 90 victims of the Katyń Crime in the course of the Katyń investigation. v.

Fifth, several important procedural acts were carried out by the Russian Prosecutor’s Office in the final stage of the investigation. In 2004, the Prosecutor’s Office commissioned two expert’s opinions, collected historical documentation dating from the 1930s and 1940s, verified a part of the material evidence, including identification tags of Polish soldiers murdered in Katyń. Although, the Government of the Republic of Poland has not received, as yet, from the Russian side the last volume of the Russian Katyń investigation, which probably includes a decision on discontinuation of the investigation, it assumes that this decision was preceded by a number of other important procedural acts. Otherwise, both the contents and the method of drafting of this decision may be considered wrong and contrary to procedural obligations under the Convention. Moreover, the Government do not share the Court’s opinion that the classification as secret of the investigation’s files and the discontinuation of proceedings are not sufficiently weighty and compelling to warrant the Court’s temporal competence over the case.

Taking this into account the Government wishes to stress that the abovementioned material fulfills a requirement of at least a summary description of developments that can trigger a fresh investigative obligation under Article 2 of the Convention. In particular the so-called Ukrainian Katyń List with over 3,400 names of Polish officers handed over to Russian authorities in 2002 may itself constitute a new peace of material coming into light in the post-ratification period and being sufficiently weighty and compelling to warrant a new round of proceedings and therefore empowering the Court with temporal jurisdiction in the present case.

12. Furthermore, the Government of the Republic of Poland considers that the case represents a serious issue of general importance in reference to Article 2 and – in a wider context – deals with the scope of liability of a state that has committed a crime under international law, including a war crime. The examination of the present case by the Court would be consistent with the trend of expanding international jurisdiction that is centred on the victims. The multiplicity of contemporary international tribunals comes to enlarge the access to justice. Although violations of human rights continue to subsist, the reactions to them are nowadays immediate and far more effective. In this context, the cycle of cases of massacres lodged in recent years with the Inter-American Court of Human Rights which started with the landmark judgment of Barrios Altos v. Peru (judgment of 14.03.2001) is particularly noteworthy. In this cycle, the IACtHR itself established

400

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka the aggravating circumstances of the violations at issue, namely the occurrence of grave violations of human rights, planned and perpetrated in pursuance of State policies of systematic practice of extermination of human beings, vulnerable condition of victims.

Some of those cases also raised the question of aggravated international responsibility of the respondent State for facts occurring in planned operations and for non-compliance with the obligation to investigate them effectively (Goiburu and Others v. Paraguay, judgment of 22.09.2006, paras. 86-92; Massacre of Plan de Sanchez v. Guatemala, judgment of 24.04.2004, para. 51). In those cases, the IACtHR underlined the fact that the authorities denied investigation of the facts and access to justice to numerous human beings.

The relatives of the victims have, at last, – after many years, – found justice before an international human rights tribunal, the IACtHR.

13. The analysis of the case-law of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights also reveals a different aspect of the State’s responsibility which is relevant to the case at issue. The IACtHR also acknowledged the misuse of language by State agents in cases of massacres and other atrocities. The IACtHR observed that the practice of grave violations of human rights, without investigation of the facts was accompanied by the “generalized situation of impunity” of the perpetrators (Cantuta v. Peru, judgment of 29.11.2006, paras.92-93, Goiboru and Others v. Paraguay, op.cit., paras. 72-73). In the case at issue, as underlined by the Chamber in para. 159, the Russian authorities “demonstrated a callous disregard for the applicants’ concerns and deliberate obfuscation of the circumstances of the Katyń massacre”. Further the Court underlined that the Russian courts in fact denied the reality of summary executions that have been carried out in the Katyń forest and at other mass murder sites. The Court concluded that “such approach chosen by the Russian authorities has been contrary to the fundamental values of the Convention and must have exacerbated the applicant’s suffering”. This unequivocal negative assessment of the Russian authorities’ conduct toward the applicants, made pursuant to Article 3, has not been reflected in the Court’s considerations under Article 2.

14. Considering the development of international law to cover human rights violations with the widest possible legal protection, the Government of the Republic of Poland takes the stand that the concept of stricter responsibility of states for the most serious violations of human rights as well as the Russian authorities’ hostile conduct toward the applicants should also be reflected in the ECHR case-law relating to a state’s procedural obligations under Article 2. The interpretation of the “special circumstances clause”, which is under discussion, presents an unique opportunity in this regard.

For the reasons stated above, the Government strongly believes that the intervention of the Grand Chamber in this case is fully justified, because the outcome of this case could have a serious impact on the extent and scope of the protection afforded by the Convention. Therefore the Government supports the request for the referral to the Grand Chamber lodged by the applicants on 29 June, 3 and 5 July 2012.

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

401

Stanowisko Rządu RP z 30 listopada 2012 r. przed Wielką Izbą Europejskiego Trybunału Praw Człowieka w sprawie Janowiec i inni p. Rosji Written Submission by the Government of Poland dated 30 November 2012 to the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights in the case Janowiec and Others v. Russia With reference to your letter of 10 October 2012 and to the above-mentioned applications, the Government of Poland would like to inform the European Court of Human Rights that they would like to exercise their right under Article 36 § 1 of the Convention and submit written comments on the application at issue and take part in the oral hearing scheduled for 13 February 2013.

Moreover to contribute to the Court’s proceedings in most appropriate manner the Government would like to present below a summary of arguments put forward at the previous stages of the proceedings in support of the application at issue.

1.

The legal characteristics of the Katyń Crime and responsibility of States for crimes under international law

In the opinion of the Polish Government the case raises several issues of fundamental importance for the scope of the Court’s jurisdiction ratione temporis under Article 2 in cases in which a death of a person occurred prior to the date of entry into force of the Convention in respect of the respondent State, with subsequent proceedings which have been conducted, at least partly, after that date. This case will also wield significant meaning for rights of victims of crimes under Article 3 as well as the determination of the ambit in which States are to cooperate with the Court on the grounds of Article 38 of the Convention.

In the Government’s opinion, the legal nature of the Katyń Crime, being a crime under international law, bears on all aspects of the case settled by the Grand Chamber.

The Katyń Crime, perpetrated in 1940, that resulted in the killing of at least 21857 people constitutes a delictum iuris gentium. For this case purposes the Government do not see it mandatory to debate of the Katyń Crime’s possible classifying as a crime against humanity and crime of genocide as it fully meets all the legal premises to classify it as a war crime.

Such a classification, today established in the law of armed conflicts under Article 85 of the Additional Protocol I to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, did underlie the international law, as a concept, ever since the establishment of its 19th-century customary rules (such as the Lieber Code, the Petersburg Declaration 1868, the Draft Brussels Declaration 1974 and 1899 and 1907 Hague Conventions). Thus, customary law and international literature had, already at the time, circumscribed the principal elements of war crimes.1 The Nuremberg 1

Ch. Greenwood, Report on International Humanitarian Law published under commission from the

402

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka

Principles, the Nuremberg and Tokyo jurisprudence, together with the 1949 Geneva Conventions and the 1977 Additional Protocols, have endowed this concept with its definite normative profile, further completed and extended by the pertinent provisions of the 1993 Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (Articles 5 and 6), and especially the 1998 Rome Statute of International Criminal Court (Articles 7 and 8).

In light of all these instruments, the events referred to as the Katyń Crime must definitely be qualified as a war crime, irrespective of the formal treaty engagement thereto on the part of the Soviet Union. The first proof of this is the fact that the Soviet Union has in practice fully acknowledged the status of combatants of the Polish prisoners of war. This has been constantly proven by the application to the combatants of special Soviet Rules on the Treatment of POWs, as devised on 19 September 1939, and the creation by the NKVD of a special POW administrative body to implement these rules. The Soviet Union has never since questioned this fact.

The Government would like to recall that the Court has recently given its attention to the issue of treatment of POWs and customary character of the relevant rules in the case Kononov v. Latvia. 2 Under the Nuremberg and Tokyo Rules, this war crime could be understood to the same extent also as a breach of ius ad bellum treaties such as the 1932 Pact of Non-aggression between Poland and the USSR (extended until 1945 in 1934).

There is also no need in this case to re-examine the Russian Federation’s own express admissions of the Katyń Crime’s legal qualification. The Government would like to draw the Court’s attention to the words of the USSR’s Deputy Chief Prosecutor at the Nuremberg Trial, Yuri Pokrovski, who spoke in 1946 of these acts, saying “one of the most important criminal acts for which the major war criminals are responsible was the mass execution of Polish prisoners of war, shot in the Katyń Forest near Smolensk (…).”3 It should be remembered that Soviet propaganda kept attributing these acts to the Nazi Germans.

It is also noteworthy to quote the Russian Duma’s Statement of 26 November 2010 where it is expressly stated that the “mass extermination of Polish citizens” was carried out at the direct orders of Stalin and other Soviet leaders.4 The Polish Government would like to recall once again the customary weight of the Fourth Netherlands Government as part of the Centenary of the First Hague Peace Conference, published in F. Kalshoven (ed.) The Centennial of the First International Peace Conference, Kluwer 2000, p. 253.

See also R. Kolb’s comments ICJ year 2011, CR 2011/20 Verbatim record of public sitting of 15 September 2011 in the case concerning Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy: Greece intervening), p. 43: see also Document No. 81, US Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, US v. Wilhelm von Leeb et al., in The United Nations War Crime Commission, Law reports of Trials of War Crimes, Vol. XII, 1949, pp. 86-89.

2 Kononov v. Latvia, judgment of 17.05.2010, appl. no. 36376/04, §§ 200-204.

3 See: Nuremberg Trial Proceedings vol. 7, p. 425 (fifty-ninth day, 14 February 1946, morning session).

4 Full text of the Russian Duma’s Statement of 26 November 2010 was submitted to the Court by the Russian Federation on 9 December 2010.

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

403

Hague Convention of 1907 and the Regulations attached, as confirmed by the Nuremberg Principles, as well as the impact of the Martens’ clause. There are also arguments that, in absence of express provisions on the criminal responsibility in the 1899 and the 1907 Hague Conventions, violations of the laws and customs of war were being looked upon as delicta iuris gentium at the time of their adoption.5 Taking note that the facts have been established as such and not deeming it necessary to proceed any further with the re-examination of the Court’s competence under the substantive limb of the Convention’s Article 2, the Polish Government thus consider the Court’s own words of paramount importance, when it says that “the principles underlying the Convention cannot be interpreted and applied in a vacuum. The Court must also take into account any relevant rules of international law when examining questions concerning its jurisdiction.”6 The Court should thus interpret the obligations of a State under the Convention in the light of its obligations under international law. The Court may also conclude that a violation of the Convention also infringes other international corpora iuris. The classification of the Katyń Crime as a crime under international law would be therefore highly relevant to determine the nature and extent of Russian Government’s responsibility for the subsequent denial of justice through the failure to prosecute.

The unique legal character of the Katyń Crime as a war crime had been confirmed in the Chamber’s judgment of 16 April 2012, where the Court stated that “the mass murder of Polish prisoners by the Soviet secret police had the features of a war crime” (para. 140).

Furthermore, the Government of the Republic of Poland considers that the case represents a serious issue of general importance in reference to Article 2 and – in a wider context – deals with the scope of liability of a State that has committed a crime under international law, including a war crime. The examination of the present case by the Court would be consistent with the trend of expanding international jurisdiction that is centered on the victims. The multiplicity of contemporary international tribunals comes to enlarge the access to justice. Although violations of human rights continue to subsist, the reactions to them are nowadays immediate and far more effective. In this context, the cycle of cases of massacres lodged in recent years with the Inter-American Court of Human Rights which started with the landmark judgment of Barrios Altos v. Peru (judgment of 14.03.2001) is particularly noteworthy. In this cycle, the IACtHR itself established the aggravating circumstances of the violations at issue, namely the occurrence of grave violations of human rights, planned and perpetrated in pursuance of State policies of systematic practice of extermination of human beings, vulnerable condition of victims. Some of those cases also raised the question of aggravated international responsibility of the respondent State for facts occurring in planned operations and for non-compliance with the obligation to investigate them effectively (Goiburu and Others v. Paraguay, judgment of 22.09.2006, para. 86-92; Massacre of Plan de Sanchez v. Guatemala, judgment of 24.04.2004, para. 51). In those cases, the IACtHR underlined the fact that the authorities denied investigation of the facts and access to justice to numerous human beings. The relatives of the victims 5

Ch. Greenwood, Report …, op. cit.

Agim Behrami and Bekir Behrami v. France (appl. no. 71412/01) and Saramati v. France, Germany and Norway (appl. no. 78166/01) decision of 2 May 2007, § 122.

6

404

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka

have, at last – after many years – found justice before an international human rights tribunal, the IACtHR. The analysis of the case-law of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights also reveals a different aspect of the State’s responsibility which is relevant to the case at issue. The IACtHR also acknowledged the misuse of language by State agents in cases of massacres and other atrocities. The IACtHR observed that the practice of grave violations of human rights, without investigation of the facts was accompanied by the “generalized situation of impunity” of the perpetrators (Cantuta v. Peru, judgment of 29.11.2006, paras. 92-93, Goiboru and Others v. Paraguay, paras. 72-73). In the case at issue, as underlined by the Chamber in its judgment in para.

159, the Russian authorities “demonstrated a callous disregard for the applicants’ concerns and deliberate obfuscation of the circumstances of the Katyń massacre”. Further the Court underlined that the Russian courts in fact denied the reality of summary executions that have been carried out in the Katyń Forest and at other mass murder sites. The Court concluded that “such approach chosen by the Russian authorities has been contrary to the fundamental values of the Convention and must have exacerbated the applicant’s suffering”. This unequivocal negative assessment of the Russian authorities’ conduct toward the applicants, made pursuant to Article 3, has not been reflected in the Chamber’s considerations under Article 2.

2.

Article 2 of the Convention (the Court’s temporal jurisdiction under Article 2 in its procedural aspect and violation of Article 2) 2.1. Competence ratione temporis of the Court

In the course of proceedings before the Chamber and in the Government’s letter supporting the applicants’ motions to refer the case to the Grand Chamber, the Government of Poland had already made detailed remarks on existence of the Court’s jurisdiction under the procedural limb of Article 2. While reiterating the most important remarks related to this issue, here they would like to focus on the arguments conducive to include this case in the Court’ jurisdiction under Article 2.

In the case of Blečić v. Croatia, the Court established general principles which should be applied with respect to its jurisdiction ratione temporis. For the cases introduced under Article 2, these principles have been developed in the case Šilih v. Slovenia, and further confirmed in the jurisprudence of the Court, wherein the Court has explicated that the standards and criteria established in the Blečić case are of a general character; which would require the special nature of rights laid down in Article 2 of the Convention to be taken into account. The Court took this opportunity to reiterate that Article 2 is among the very fundamental provisions in the Convention enshrining the very basic values of democratic societies – the foundations of the Council of Europe. Consequently, the Court was to conclude that it has – under certain circumstances – the jurisdiction ratione temporis to examine complaints related to deaths having taken place beyond its temporal jurisdiction stricto sensu, be it for the sake of enhancing respect for the principle of legal certainty.

In determining its jurisdiction under Article 2, the Court ruled that the procedural obligation to carry out an effective investigation under Article 2 has evolved into a separate and autonomous obligation binding the State even when death occurred before the critical date.

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

405

However, considering the principle of legal certainty, the Court’s temporal jurisdiction over compliance with the procedural obligation under Article 2 in respect of deaths that occurred before the critical date is not open-ended. First, it is limited to procedural acts and/or omissions occurring after the date of ratification. Secondly, there must exist a genuine connection between the death and the entry into force of the Convention in the respondent State. In the Šilih judgment the Court explained above all that the notion of genuine connection means that a significant proportion of the procedural steps required by this provision have been or ought to have been carried out after the critical date. In judgments issued after the Šilih case, the Court has presented an interpretation of the term ‘connection’ between death and ratification of the Convention. These judgments addressed the issue of the period of time that elapsed between the death and the entry into force of the Convention in respect of the respondent State as well as proportion of the investigation carried out after the ratification date that would ensure compliance with the procedural obligation set out in Article 2.

However, in the Šilih judgment the Court acknowledged that apart from the above mentioned understanding of the genuine ‘connection’ in certain circumstances the connection could also be based on the need to ensure that the guarantees and the underlying values of the Convention are protected in a real and effective manner. Until now the Court had not commented on the possibility to base the Court’s temporal jurisdiction on this ‘humanitarian clause’ or ‘special circumstances clause’ as contained in the last subparagraph of paragraph 163 in the Šilih v.

Slovenia judgment. The present case offers an unique opportunity in this respect.

In the Chamber’s judgment the Court decided that the ‘special circumstances clause’ should be interpreted as covering two elements. First, it has to be established that the event which caused death is different in all aspects from a common crime. It would have to be a war crime or a crime against humanity. Secondly, even when it comes to this category of crimes which are not subject to statutory limitation, a state’s obligation to prosecute them is not unlimited. In the opinion of the Court, this obligation is limited to cases of new evidence disclosed publicly that sheds light on committed crimes that a State which has ratified the Convention is obligated to prosecute. Only in such cases, the Court, under Article 2, is able to assess the fairness of an investigation conducted after the date of ratification of crimes committed before that date.

In the context of these general considerations, the Chamber reaffirmed that the Katyń Crime was a war crime committed by the USSR authorities. Nonetheless, the Chamber argued that after the date of ratification, no new evidence had been disclosed or submitted, or new issues had been raised that would have revived the procedural obligation with respect to this crime.

Therefore, the Chamber concluded that there were no elements that would have provided grounds for establishing a connection between the distant past when the crimes were committed and the period after the ratification of the Convention. Thus, no special circumstances had occurred that could be used to infer the existence of a connection between death and ratification, as required for establishing the Court’s jurisdiction.

In the Government’s opinion the Chamber’s interpretation means in fact that even if the first condition is fulfilled i.e. the commitment of a crime under international law not subject to statutory limitation, decisive will be the circumstance of disclosing new evidence. It should be noted that this circumstance mainly depends on the effectiveness of the conducted investigation, because the disclosure of new evidence or circumstances depends in most cases on

406

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka

the activity of the authorities. The Chamber in its previous interpretations always treated the inactivity of the prosecuting authorities during an ongoing investigation as an aggravating circumstance for the government (cf. Jularić paras. 47-51). It further argued that “the delays in the investigation significantly diminished the prospect of its success, led to the loss of existing evidence and created substantial obstacles to the completion of the investigation, at least as regards the proper establishment of the facts of the case”. What is more, as it was rightly assessed in the Chamber’s judgment the unfairness of the protracted investigation exposed the applicants in the present case to degrading and inhuman treatment on the part of the Russian Federation authorities. Russian courts’ rulings not only questioned the previous positions of the Russian Prosecutor’s Office in relation to the fate of the applicants’ relatives, but – more importantly – negated basic historical facts that have been public knowledge for several decades. This leads us to argue that the Russian courts denied that the Katyń Crime was a crime under international law, including a war crime.

For this reason, the interpretation of the ’special circumstances clause’ – in the opinion of the Polish Government – should account for the special nature of the committed acts, which were crimes under international law, including a war crime, and for other elements “indicating new material coming to light in the post-ratification period” (cf. Jointly partly dissenting opinion of Judges Spielmann, Villiger and Nussberger). In the assessment of the present case the following factual and legal circumstances are to be taken into consideration for ascertaining the existence of the abovementioned ‘genuine connection’: 1.

The prosecution in the Katyń Crime cases was initiated in 1990 and discontinued in 2004. Any earlier steps towards it would have been improcedent and impossible for political reasons, namely the direct involvement of the USSR’s leaders – which could not have been addressed until the collapse of the USSR; thus these steps were undertaken as soon as it was possible.

2.

The steps have been initiated ex officio, upon the initiative of the Soviet authorities and have been pursued by the Russian Federation six years after the ratification of the Convention until 2004.

3.

There is a substantial number of persons having a legitimate interest to find out all the reasons and circumstances of this crime. The Government shall submit information (under the submissions supra concerning violation of Article 2 in procedural aspect) on the activities undertaken by persons whose next of kin would have allegedly perished under Soviet occupation in 1940, as well as on the motivation for such undertakings. In the present case, notwithstanding a considerable lapse of time, there would be a substantive number of victims to be entitled to claim an investigation or to complain to the Court on the lack of and/or on the inconclusive nature of the investigation.

4.

There are ample possibilities to conduct investigations, proof of which shall be provided (see, submissions supra concerning violation of Article 2 in procedural aspect). Naturally the Government are aware of the fact that even in special circumstances, the Court’s temporal jurisdiction is not open-ended. However, when setting the limits of jurisdiction, real possibilities of conducting an investigation should be taken into account. In the opinion of the Government of the Republic of Poland, such possibilities did exist until the very end of criminal investigation No. 159.

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights 5.

407

Even if to follow the Chamber’s newly introduced requirement of the need of showing new elements that could revive a procedural obligation of the investigation, and therefore providing a bridge from the distant past into the post-ratification period, the Government would like to point out that such new elements did in fact exist in the instant case and therefore can serve as a bridge between the distant past and the recent postratification period. From 1998 until 2004, the Russian Prosecutor’s Office, as part of the Russian criminal investigation No. 159, carried out some procedural acts that produced new pieces of evidence which in our opinion not only “revived” the procedural obligation of investigation under Article 2 of the Convention but maintained the existing obligation. The Polish Government only successively learned about these new acts, therefore it was not possible to inform the Court at the earlier stages of the proceedings about the detailed content of the case file No. 159. So far, the Russian Federation has handed over to the Polish side copies of 148 volumes of files of the Russian investigation, which, however, lack continuity. The last tranche of 11 volumes was handed over to the Polish side on 7 April 2011. The whole material was analyzed and partially translated in the course of the Polish investigation into the Katyń massacre. The Government of the Republic of Poland wishes to use the material as evidence in the present case. Part of the evidence has already been presented by Poland in its letter to the Court of 15 September 2011 and during the oral hearing before the Court on 6 October 2011. The Government of the Republic of Poland wishes to note that the below-mentioned material came to light in the post-ratification period and is sufficiently weighty and compelling to warrant the Court’s temporal jurisdiction over the present case. a) Firstly, between 1998 and 2004 there was correspondence between the Russian and Ukrainian Prosecutor’s Offices in respect of the Katyń Crime. Correspondence between Russia and Ukraine as well as Russian procedural acts taken on these grounds had been carried out until the conclusion of the Russian Katyń investigation. The Polish Government would like to draw the Court’s attention e.g. to the following acts: • In 2002, most presumably on 9 September 2002 the Ukrainian side addressed a letter to the Russian Federation Prosecutor’s Office with enclosure of 13 volumes of documents concerning the Katyń Crime. The copious and important evidence contained, among others, the so-called Ukrainian Katyń List with over 3,400 names of Polish officers executed in 1940 by the NKVD in present-day Ukraine. The letter of the Ukrainian prosecution authorities is not included in the case file handed over to Polish side. However, the so-called Ukrainian Katyń List with over 3,400 names of Polish officers executed in 1940 constitutes part of the case file (vol. no. 166, pp. 1-123, see Attachment no.1); • On 4 December 2002 the Russian Prosecutor’s Office addressed a new request for legal assistance to the Ukrainian side. The relevant document is not included in the case file in possession of the Polish authorities, however the fact of addressing a request was mentioned in a decision of 16 December 2002 on prolongation of the investigation No. 159; • On 7 June 2004 the Russian Prosecutor’s Office addressed a letter to the Ukrainian side seeking legal assistance (see Attachment no. 2);

408

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka • On 10 September 2004 the Ukrainian side sent a letter to the Russian Prosecutor’s Office concerning the requests for legal assistance (see Attachment no.3). b) Secondly, based on the evidence handed over by the Ukrainian side, the Russian Prosecutor’s Office undertook procedural acts consisting of an analysis of the evidence sent by Ukraine which it later formally added to the files of the Russian Katyń investigation (see, Attachments nos. 4 and 5). In 2004, towards the very end of the Russian investigation, the Russian Prosecutor’s Office sent to Russian personal data centers approximately 3,400 requests for information about the fates of over 3,400 Polish citizens whose names were on the Ukrainian Katyń List. c) Thirdly, from 1998 until 2004, on the initiative of the Polish side, the Russian Prosecutor’s Office took part in Polish-Russian bilateral consultations, the aim of which was to continue the cooperation of prosecutors from Russia and Poland into the Katyń Crime by clarifying its circumstances. Moreover, the Polish side requested the Russian side in writing to provide it with new information about the circumstances of the Katyń Crime. It should be assumed that the Russian Prosecutor’s Office’s replies to Polish requests had been preceded by specific procedural acts. Otherwise the Russian side would not have displayed fairness in drafting them.

On 27 August 2001 the Minister of Justice – General Prosecutor of the Republic of Poland asked the General Prosecutor of the Russian Federation to convey to the Institute of National Remembrance (hereinafter referred to as the INR) certified copies of the complete files of the investigation of the Chief Military Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation into the Katyń Crime. In a letter dated 12 November 2001, the General Prosecutor of the Russian Federation advised the General Prosecutor of the Republic of Poland that “…at present all possible investigative actions necessary to take the final decision have been performed on the territory of Russia which decision, however, cannot be taken due to the absence of preliminary investigation materials from the General Prosecutor’s Office of Ukraine. We are constantly monitoring the arrival of any such materials…”. It is further stated in the letter that the Polish side had received “… a copy of the files of the criminal case together with all the protocols of the investigative actions and other documents…”. It is also noted that in the years 1994-1996 no investigative measures were conducted in connection with the case, which means that the Russian prosecution authorities were unable to convey any relevant materials to the Polish side. d) Fourthly, throughout the investigation, the Russian Prosecutor’s Office received very many requests for establishing the fate of the victims of the Katyń Crime. Between 1998 and 2004 alone, the Russian Prosecutor’s Office received at least 90 such requests. They were written by Polish citizens and relatives of the victims of the Katyń Crime, the Embassy of the Republic of Poland’s Consular Section in Moscow, the Belarus and Ukraine authorities, Russian state archives and the Russian Red Cross. Thanks to these requests, the Russian Prosecutor’s Office received new evidence about at least 90 victims of the Katyń Crime. Among the requests there were several requests written by or on behalf of the applicants in the present case:

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

409

• requests lodge by the applicants or their representatives: a request of Mr Krzysztof Malewicz and the answer of the Russian authorities (see, Attachment no. 6); a request of Mr Józef Szewczyk on behalf of Mr Janowski and Trybowiec and the answer of the Russian authorities (see, Attachment No. 7); a request of Ms Krystyna Krzyszkowiak – in 1998 she filed a motion with the Russian Prosecutor’s Office in which she requested information about her executed father. She informed the Russian Prosecutor’s Office that on 10 July 1995, Polish experts doing exhumation work in Mednoye, dug up a set of visiting cards with her father’s name from a death pit full of human relics. The Russian Prosecutor’s Office did not question Krystyna Krzyszkowiak in connection with this fact nor did it request the Polish authorities to provide it with the results of the Polish exhumation work in Mednoye (see, Attachment no. 8); • requests prepared by the Embassy of the Republic of Poland’s Consular Section in Moscow concerning Mr Stanislaw Malewicz and Mr Stanisław Janicki (see, Attachment no. 9); e) Fifthly, several important procedural acts were carried out by the Russian Prosecutor’s Office in the final stage of the investigation. In 2004, the Prosecutor’s Office commissioned two expert’s opinions concerning e.g. the legal qualification of Katyń Crime (see, Attachments nos. 10, 11, 12 and 13), collected historical documentation dating from the 1930s and 1940s, verified a part of the material evidence (see, the Prosecutor’s decision of 20 September 2004 on the verification of evidence, Attachment no. 14), including identification tags of Polish soldiers murdered in Katyń.

Although, the Government of the Republic of Poland have not received, as yet, from the Russian side the last volume of the Russian Katyń investigation, which probably includes a decision on discontinuation of the investigation, it assumes that this decision was preceded by a number of other important procedural acts. Otherwise, both the contents and the method of drafting of this decision may be considered wrong and contrary to procedural obligations under the Convention. f) Sixthly, the above indicated procedural acts undertaken by the Russian prosecution authorities, proof of which is to be found in the case-file No. 159 and the subsequent sudden decisions on classification as secret of the investigation’s files and the discontinuation of proceedings led as to the conclusion that there were other new findings that however remain secret to the public opinion. This fact in turn warrants the existence of the Court’s temporal jurisdiction to examine the facts of the present case.

Taking this into account the Government wish to stress that the abovementioned material fulfills a requirement of at least a summary description of developments that can trigger a fresh investigative obligation or even maintain the existing one under Article 2 of the Convention.

In particular the so-called Ukrainian Katyń List with over 3,400 names of Polish officers handed over to Russian authorities in 2002 may itself constitute a new piece of material coming into light in the post-ratification period and being sufficiently weighty and compelling to warrant a new round of proceedings and therefore empowering the Court with temporal jurisdiction in the present case.

Aware that the responsibility of a State under the European Convention is not unlimited in

410

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka

time, the Government would like to refer to the Court’s jurisprudence, stating that a procedural obligation “binds the State throughout the period in which the authorities can reasonably be expected to take measures with an aim to elucidate the circumstances of death and establish responsibility for it.”7 In the interpretation of the Convention, considerable emphasis has been put on the realization of the object and purpose of that treaty as being instrumental to the ‘protection of individual human rights’ and the maintenance and promotion of ‘the ideals and values of democratic society’.8 Any international crime would be incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention. The Court itself reiterated the special duty of States to prosecute such crimes, emphasizing it in a number of cases, starting with the case of Brecknell v. UK, where it stated that “there is little ground to be overly prescriptive as regards the possibility of an obligation to investigate unlawful killings arising many years after the events since the public interest in obtaining the prosecution and conviction of perpetrators is firmly recognized.”9 War crimes and crimes against humanity are obviously among these obligations.

In milestone cases of the Court’s jurisprudence, e.g. Streletz, Kessler and Krenz v. RFN, Korberly v. Hungary, and recently Kononov v. Latvia, the Court corroborated the State’s duty to bring criminal proceedings against persons who have committed in the past acts which would amount to war crimes, crimes against humanity and the like. In particular, the Court recognized that ”the successor courts cannot be criticised for applying and interpreting the legal provisions in force at the material time during the former regime, but in the light of the principles governing a State subject to the rule of law and having regard to the core principles on which the Convention system is built,”10 including the doctrine of effet utile interpretation.11 The improper administration of justice, including denial of access to courts or adequate procedures, constitutes a denial of justice. In relation to cases concerning the right to life, the de7

See: Šilih v. Slovenia, op.cit., paragraph 157. See also Brecknell v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 27.11.2007, appl. no. 32457/04, §§ 66-72, and Hackett v. the United Kingdom, dec. of 10.05.2005, appl. no. 34698/04.

8 Preamble to the European Convention on Human Rights.

9 See: Brecknell v. the United Kingdom, op.cit., § 69.

10 See: Kononov v. Latvia, op.cit., § 241.

11 See, Golder v. UK, judgment of 21.02.1975, appl. no. 4451/70, as well as Loizidou v. Turkey, judgment of 23.03.1995, appl. no. 15318/89. See inter alia also P. Pustorino, L’interpretazione della Convenzione europea dei diritti dell’uomo nella prassi della Commissione e della Corte di Strasburgo, Napoli 1998, p.

39; See also: Dissenting opinion of Judge C. Trindade to Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Georgia v. Russian Federation), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2011, p.70, para. 191: “The hermeneutics of human rights treaties, faithful to the general rule of interpretation bona fides of treaties (Article 31(1) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969 and 1986), bears in mind the three component elements of the text in the current meaning, the context, and the object and purpose of the treaty at issue, as well as the nature of the treaty (…) Underlying the general rule of treaty interpretation is the principle ut res magis valeat quam pereat (the so-called effet utile) whereby States Parties to human rights treaties ought to secure to the conventional provisions the appropriate effects at the domestic level; this principle applies not only in relation to substantive norms of those treaties, but also in relation to procedural norms (…)”.

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

411

nial of justice consists in the failure to investigate or prosecute the perpetrators of the crime.

Such failure extending over a long period of time undermines the right to the realization of justice, assured by the rule of law at both the national and international levels. The rule of law is embodied in the impartial and objective functioning of the courts and of prosecutors warranting equality of all before the law. These guarantees are enshrined in the Convention to which the Court rightly refers as “a constitutional instrument of European public order (ordre public).”12 Moreover, the admission of the Court’s jurisdiction in this case would tangibly contribute to the growing efforts to fight international impunity, since the bona fide compliance by the States with their procedural duties resulting inter alia from Article 2 certainly seems the most effective way to achieve this.13 The Court also finds in its jurisprudence that the obligation for a State to prosecute shall be drawn not only from Article 2 of the Convention, but also from the applicable laws and customs of war, since the procedural scope of Article 2 involves the State’s obligation to start and carry out an effective investigation even when the death took place before the critical date.14 Here, the fact that international crimes have no statute of limitations has its consequence in light of the Convention. With regard to these crimes, the procedural obligation thus possesses a continuous and substantive nature. Hence, the State has an ongoing responsibility under general international law to make all reasonable efforts to bring the perpetrators to justice.

The duty to investigate is binding in the abovementioned cases, and certainly applies to international crimes. The Government are fully aware that it would not be possible or perhaps even desirable that all events occurring in the distant past be a venue to the application of the aforementioned principle, as no one can be expected to do the impossible (Ultra posse nemo tenetur). Awareness of this only reinforces our conviction that in this case, the Court is endowed with jurisdiction and that there exists a specific duty to prosecute this war crime.

As far as the possibilities to investigate crimes committed in distant past under former regimes are concerned, the Government would like to draw the Grand Chamber’s attention to endeavours of the Polish Commission for the Prosecution of Crimes against the Polish Nation established in 1998. The Commission constitutes one of the departments of the Institute of National Remembrance. The Commission investigates crimes against people of Polish origin, as well as Polish citizens of other origin and other citizens who were harmed in the Polish territories. Prosecutors of the Commission conduct investigations into Communist, Nazi and other crimes against peace and humanity or war crimes, committed by Communist state officials, and by security bodies of the German Third Reich and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics between 1 September 1939 and 31 July 1990. The efforts of the Institute’s prosecutors have resulted in filing between 2000 and 2012 more than 173 bills of indictment against 189 persons for communists crimes committed in the years 1939-1952. In the result of the 12

See, Loizidou v. Turkey (Preliminary objections), judgment of 23.03.1995, appl. no. 15318/89, § 75.

See also the Guidelines of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on eradicating impunity for serious human rights violations, adopted on 30 March 2011.

14 See: Šilih v. Slovenia, op.cit., § 159.

13

412

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka

conducted proceedings 124 persons were convicted and 44 cases were discontinued due to the deaths of the accused. The Commission filled also 2 bills of indictment against 2 persons for committing Nazi crimes. One of the accused was sentenced in 2002 to 8 years of imprisonment, the second proceedings were discontinued due to the accused’ death.

To sum up, in order to determine the Court’s jurisdiction ratione tempore for the case sub judice, one should underscore the following: – there exist circumstances de iure and de facto establishing the link between the death, the entry into force of the Convention and the subsequent activities of the Russian authorities; especially the fact of the sudden decisions on classification as secret of the investigation’s files and the discontinuation of proceedings can lead to the conclusion that there were new findings that however remain secret to the public opinion; – the crimes perpetrated in 1940 possess the characteristics of delicta iuris gentium, entailing the special duty of States to investigate and prosecute the perpetrators; – one would risk committing ‘denial of justice’ by failing to undertake such investigations;15 – the continuous character of such failure would aggravate the authorities’ responsibility.

Consequently, the circumstances of the case fully confirm the Government’s submissions that the Court has temporal jurisdiction to assess the respondent State’s compliance with its procedural obligations under Article 2 of the Convention.

2.2. Violation of Article 2 in its procedural aspect Assuming that the Court has jurisdiction to examine the case from the standpoint of the procedural obligation under Article 2 the Polish Government regret to reiterate that the Russian Katyń investigation has not been conducted effectively. In previous observations on this, they already pointed out several instances of this lack of effectiveness, and wish to reiterate several most important elements.

2.3. The ineffectiveness of the Russian investigation 1. The first concerns the fact that the applicants have been given contradictory information about their next of kin’s whereabouts: on the one hand, the Russian Prosecutor’s Office confirmed their execution in 1940, whilst on the other hand, the Russian judiciary considered them missing persons.

2. The second concerns the facts that regarding the position of the Russian Federation before the Court, the Government fail to understand la fin-de non recevoir on the part of the Russian prosecution towards evidence that was collected by Polish experts and handed over to the Russian Federation in response to the Russian request for legal assistance.

Above all, there are serious doubts about the categorical claim by the Russian authorities that it was impossible to officially determine the death of the applicants’ relatives. In accordance with information possessed by the Polish Government, the Russian prosecution authorities 15

R. Bernhardt (ed), Encyclopedia of Public International Law, Amsterdam 1992, vol. I, pp. 1007-1010.

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

413

conducting the investigation had in their possession numerous documents confirming the issuance of the death sentence on Polish nationals interned, among others, in the camps at Starobelsk, Kozelsk and Ostashkov, and the implementation of that sentence. Had the Russian authorities wished to do so, they could have participated in the exhumation works conducted

by Polish authorities in the years 1994-1996 at Katyń, Kharkov and Mednoye or requested information on the results of those works. Furthermore, the Russian authorities could have asked to examine all the relatives of the Katyń Crime victims who had not been examined previously, including the second applicant, who had asked the Chief Military Prosecutor’s Office in 1998 to rehabilitate her husband.

In 2004 Polish authorities initiated their own investigation, with the purpose of determining the circumstances of what had happened in 1940. During their investigation, the Polish authorities managed to corroborate a number of facts concerning the fates of the prisoners from the Starobelsk, Kozelsk and Ostashkov camps camp and to obtain evidence that all the relatives of the applicants had been among the executed prisoners.

In consequence, it can be ascertained that on the basis of the evidential materials in its possession concerning investigation No. 159, the Russian prosecution was unquestionably able to confirm the execution in 1940 of both of the applicants relatives in the case 55508/07 – Antoni Nawratil and Andrzej Janowiec and at least four relatives of the applicants in the case 29520/09: Wincenty Wołk, Stanisław Rodowicz, Stanisław Mielecki and Ryszard Żołędziowski. Furthermore, the Russian Federation could have easily obtained evidence, for example by participation in the exhumation works in Katyń, Kharkov and Mednoye in the years 1994-1996 or by asking Polish authorities for their results, which would have confirmed, with sufficient probability, the death of the other relatives of the applicants.

3. The third element concerns the conclusion that the Russian prosecution erroneously assessed evidence it collected or received from the Polish judicial system: the number of persons executed by shooting was erroneously put at 1803 and the number of indentified persons at 22, which contradicts official Russian documents collected in the so-called Set no. 1 which speak of the shooting of no less than 21,857 Polish POWs by the NKVD in 1940.

The method of reasoning and appraisal of evidence that made it possible to establish in the course of investigation No. 159 that the NKVD had executed only 1 803 Polish nationals in 1940, is highly questionable. The number 1 803 was cited by the Moscow District Military Court and the Military Chamber of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, during domestic proceedings initiated by the applicants.

Similar doubts arise as to the reasoning and assessment of evidence that led the Russian authorities to claim that the remains of only 22 persons had been identified in the course of the Russian investigation. The Polish Government wish to underline that the exhumation works conducted in the early Nineties, during which the remains of 22 persons were identified, were of a procedural character and were conducted within the framework of investigation No. 159 of the Chief Military Prosecutor’s Office jointly by Russian and Polish prosecutors. The exhumation works in Kharkov were conducted from 25 July to 9 August 1991. Their purpose (as affirmed by the exhumation protocol) was to corroborate evidence collected during the Russian investigation and to check the testimony of witnesses concerning the execution in April and May 1940 by the Kharkov Command

414

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka

of the NKVD of Polish officers, held prior to their transportation to Kharkov at the POW camp in Starobelsk. Thus, the exhumation works in Kharkov had the objective of corroborating the investigation theory that section 4 of the forest-park zone of Kharkov was the burial site of the murdered Poles, prisoners of Starobelsk. Similarly, the exhumation works conducted on 1529 August 1991 in Mednoye were of a strictly procedural character and their goal was to check the thesis that Mednoye was the burial site of murdered Poles, prisoners of Ostashkov. The excavation works at Katyń on 20-21 November 1991 had the purpose of confirming that the remains of Polish officers from the Kozelsk camp, exhumed in 1943, were buried in the Katyń Forest. No identifications were conducted during the 1991 works in Katyń. It should be underlined that the Russian Federation authorities are aware that the exhumation works in the early Nineties were not of a comprehensive character, as affirmed by the Russian representative in the position submitted to the Court (“performed partial exhumations...” – see par. 25 of the Memorandum submitted by the Russian Federation during the proceedings before the Chamber).

The circumstances cited above indicate that all the exhumation works conducted in the early Nineties were of a strictly procedural character and had the purpose of corroborating already collected evidence in support of the theory that the remains of Polish officers shot in 1940 were buried at Katyń, Kharkov and Mednoye. Thus, if those works were of a procedural character and did not have the goal of excavating and identifying the remains of all the Polish citizens buried there, the Russian authorities should have attached even greater importance to the other evidence in the case, proving objectively and irrefutably that the number of those executed exceeded 1 803 and equalled at least 21 857. The same applies to other evidence in the case, which objectively and irrefutably indicates that the number of identified victims of the Katyń Crime was much greater than 22 persons. During investigation No. 159, source documents of fundamental significance were discovered in Russian archives, including so-called NKVD dispatching lists of prisoners from the Kozelsk and Osatashkov camps, a register of the files of prisoners removed from the camp at Starobelsk and the so-called Dossier No. 1 containing, inter alia, the Soviet Politburo decision of 5 March 1940 on the extermination of the Polish prisoners. Those documents, together with the lists of persons identified in Katyń in 1943 provided the basis for determining the personal data of the victims of the Katyń Crime. Thus, it is assumed that the prisoners from Kozelsk, Ostashkov and Starobelsk, whose names were entered on the various dispatching lists – unless they belonged to the group of prisoners who died in the camps, were released from them, or were among the 395 survivors of the Kozelsk, Starobelsk and Ostashkov camps – were murdered in April-May 1940 by Soviet NKVD officers implementing the Politburo decision of 5 March 1940 on the extermination of the Poles.

On the basis of the resolution of the Soviet Politburo of 5 March 1940, on the execution of 25 700 Polish officers, policemen and civil servants, and also on the basis of A. Shelepin’s memo to N. Khrushchev of 3 March 1959, which put the number of persons executed in 1940 by the NKVD at 21 857, including 4 421 persons from the NKVD camp at Kozelsk, 6 311 from the NKVD camp at Ostashkov and 3 820 from the NKVD camp at Starobelsk, the results of exhumation works during the first half of the Nineties conducted in Katyń, Kharkov and Mednoye, and testimony by eyewitnesses to the Katyń Crime (e.g. Mitrofan Syromyatnikov, a former Kharkov District NKVD officer), it is possible to determine unequivocally that sentences of death were carried out on at least 21 857 Polish officers, policemen and civil servants, among them – relatives of the applicants.

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

415

4. The fourth element, the Russian prosecution failed to undertake all possible steps towards gathering evidence. Even if some of the activities were finally performed the authorities failed to make use of the results of the activities and/or the conclusions as to the relevant fact and legal circumstances drawn by the Russian authorities remained unknown to the public. a)

The forensic endeavours of the Russian side have been too haphazard to be conducive to any possibility of establishing a convincing body count.

b)

Objections can be also raised with regard to the fact that Russian prosecution had given up any autonomous endeavour to collect such evidence, passively awaiting cooperation on behalf of Belarus and Ukraine to that respect.

The Russian Federation has confirmed in its position submitted to the Court (e.g. par. 31 of the Memorandum of the Russian Federation) that no efforts were made in the years 19952004 to independently collect evidence.

c)

Shortcomings in the work of the Russian prosecution are also indicated by the fact that after 1995 it stopped collecting evidence pertaining to the applicants’ relatives. After 1998 no hearings of applicants were held, in spite of the fact that the applicants themselves addressed the Russian prosecution to obtain information on their next of kin.

Reference to some of the requests has been made above; here the Government would like only to indicate as an example that in 1998 – that is several years before the discontinuation of the Russian investigation – the second applicant in the case 29520/09, widow of Wincenty Wołk, conveyed to the Russian authorities a motion for the legal rehabilitation of her husband. In 1998 the Russian prosecution responded to the second applicant, making rehabilitation contingent on the ending of investigation No. 159. At the same time, the prosecution did not conduct an examination of the widow. Thus, the prosecution relinquished the possibility of collecting all available information about the fate of the second applicant’s husband.

In this connection it should be noted that after the discontinuation of the Russian investigation, the second applicant was examined in February 2005 by Polish prosecutors in the framework of the Polish Katyń investigation launched in November 2004. On that occasion the second applicant confirmed that she was being examined for the first time with regard to the Katyń Crime. Similar statements were made in the course of the Polish investigation by other applicants in the instant case.

5. The fifth, Russian Federation also errs in believing that no documents concerning the socalled criminal cases against Polish prisoners of war have remained, inferring from it that it is not possible to carry out a legal rehabilitation of the victims of the Katyń Crime.

Namely: In a joint Polish-Russian publication of state archives dating from the 1990s, documents have remained that point to legal grounds of reprisals against one of the prisoners of war from the camp in Ostashkov – Stefan Olejnik, a policeman. Some of the next of kin were also prisoners in the camp in Ostashkov.16 16

See, W. Materski, W. Gusaczenko (ed.), Katyń Dokumenty Zbrodni. Jeńcy nie wypowiedzianej wojny, Warszawa 1995, vol. 1, pp. 360-362.

416

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka

Moreover, the position adopted by the Russian prosecution to the effect that all documents pertaining to penal cases against the relatives of the applicants have been destroyed so it is impossible to determine the legal basis of the repressions against them is also doubtful.

That assertion has led to the conclusion that without determining the legal basis for the repressions there is no legal possibility of rehabilitating the applicants’ relatives. At the same time, in the course of the judicial supervision of the Russian Katyń investigation, the military prosecution and courts made use of lists of prisoners of the Kozelsk and Ostashkov camps, wherein individual “case” (дело) numbers where placed beside the names of the applicants’ relatives held in those camps. The materials conveyed by the European Court do not elucidate the content of the materials described as “cases”, whether they were transmitted in 1940 to the “troika”, and whether they constituted the basis of the punishment meted out to the prisoners, i.e. the basis of individual decisions by the “troika” concerning the fate of the victims. Furthermore, it has not been revealed whether any of the documents designated as “cases” were destroyed, whether any of them have been preserved and if so – if they were incorporated in the materials of investigation No.159. The absence of the relevant information by the Russian side casts doubt on the efficiency of the Russian investigation and of its judicial supervision.

Furthermore, it should be underscored that the Chief Military Prosecutor’s Office and Russian courts made the legal rehabilitation of the applicants’ relatives dependent on the determination of the legal basis for imposing the penalties against them. However, the Russian authorities neither determined the content of the “cases” identified next to the names of the applicants’ murdered relatives, nor took a position regarding the crucial decision of the Soviet Politburo of 5 March 1940. The decision clearly refers to the application of “special procedures” and not to judicial penal proceedings. In this regard, too, the Russian authorities, prominently including the Chief Military Prosecutor’s Office, are guilty of omission and, in consequence, of inefficiency.

6. The sixth, the Katyń Crime was erroneously classified. It transpires from the Russian judgments that the Katyń Crime was characterised as a crime committed by officials – abuse of power (abus de pouvoir), whereas the Katyń Crime is a war crime and/or crime against humanity whose prosecution is not limited by statute.

In early 1990’s, the Russian prosecutors questioned two NKVD functionaries D. Tokariev and M. Syromiatnikov, direct participants of the Katyń Crime. Between 1990-1992, M. Syromiatnikov testified how exactly Polish POWs were executed in NKVD dungeons, where their bodies had been buried and who had taken part in this crime.17 These testimonies unequivocally point to the nature of the perpetrated crime.

7. The seventh, Russian criminal investigation was discontinued without providing explanations of many important circumstances as requested by the Polish side.

On 27 August 2001, the Minister of Justice – Attorney General addressed the Russian Federation with a specific request for information and to carry out a number of actions. In the response dated 12 February 2001, the Russian Federation provided a curt reply that all actions had been carried 17

See, W. Materski, W. Gusaczenko (ed.), Katyń Dokumenty Zbrodni. Zagłada, Warszawa 1998, vol. 2, pp. 472-500.

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

417

out as regards the case and that the Polish side allegedly was in possession of full knowledge about the Russian investigation.

8. The eighth, also, the applicants were denied the right to effectively participate in the investigation.

They were not granted the status of an injured party, despite the fact that all of them had factual and legal interest in participating in this investigation.

From the ratification of the Convention in 1998 by the Russian Federation until the discontinuation in 2004 of the Katyń investigation, at least several applicants had applied to the Russian prosecution requesting an explanation of the circumstances surrounding the death of their next of kin. They were Witomiła Wołk-Jezierska, Krystyna Krzyszkowiak, Jerzy Janowiec, Antoni Trybowski and the recently deceased Krzysztof Malewicz, among others. None of the applicants were granted the injured party status pursuant to Article 42 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure.

The absence of formal examination of the applicants’ motion for victim status under Article 42 of the CPP prevented them from actively participating in the ongoing investigation and from acquainting themselves with the case files after the preparatory proceedings were concluded. In that way, the Russian authorities prevented the applicants from pursuing their rights in national judicial proceedings.

The denial of victim status prevented the applicants from participating in the ongoing proceedings and, in particular, from obtaining access to the investigation files after its discontinuation. Thus, the Russian authorities prevented the applicants from acquainting themselves with the collected evidence which, as indicated in letters received earlier from the prosecution (e.g. letter of 1998), contained documents pertaining to the fates of the applicants’ relatives. The applicants never had any opportunity to verify the assertion contained in the Moscow District Military Court judgment of 14 October 2008 that “the Katyń investigation had not established the fate of the said individuals” – i.e. the applicants’ relatives. The applicants were denied the possibility of acquainting themselves with the complete investigation materials and of corroborating that the prosecution had not determined the further fates of their relatives. The lack of access to investigation materials and unsuccessful appeals against prosecution decisions adversely affected the applicants’ efforts to obtain the victims’ rehabilitation in national rehabilitation proceedings.

9. The ninth, denying all applicants injured party status meant that they could not benefit from guarantees provided for in the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure. The Russian Federation’s conduct represents “denial of justice”. The principle of access to court is an integral part of customary international law relating to the treatment of foreigners. It provides that an individual who was injured in a foreign state by the authorities of such state has to be given the opportunity to bring his or her case before a court or a competent administrative body. Denial of “justice” triggers off state liability.18 The Government of Poland wish to point out that the problem of denial of victim status in the course of the Russian Katyń investigation No. 159 not only concerns the applicants in the instant 18

A.O. Adede, “A Fresh Look at the Meaning of the Doctrine of Denial of Justice under International Law”, Can.Y.B.Int’l L. 73 (1976), pp. 89-91, and J. Paulsson, Denial of Justice in International Law, Cambridge 2005, pp. 134-146.

418

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka

case but also at least several hundred other persons, relatives of the Katyń Crime victims, whose testimony was conveyed to the Russian Federation as legal assistance by the Polish authorities in the framework of the Russian Katyń investigation No. 159. As an example, the Government advise that on 11 April 1991 alone the Russian Federation received protocols of the testimony of 57 witnesses – relatives of the Kozelsk camp prisoners, testimony protocols of 34 witnesses – relatives of prisoners of the Starobelsk camps and testimony protocols of 70 witnesses – relatives of prisoners of the Ostashkov camp.

10. The tenth, the Government of the Republic of Poland wishes to make the point that the Russian Federation has wrongly assessed the public interest in uncovering a crime of the totalitarian past and the private interest of the applicants in discovering the fate of their murdered next-of-kin. Keeping a part of the Russian investigation’s files secret, including the decision of 21 September 2004 that discontinued the investigation, means that the applicants may never learn all the circumstances surrounding the death of their next of kin. The majority of the applicants are very advanced in their age. One of them, Krzysztof Malewicz, passed away last year.

Obviously, the period of time that elapses between an event and the investigation might affect the possibility of collecting evidence and indicting all the presumed perpetrators. However, even if obstacles exist that hinder the progress of an investigation, a proper attitude on the part of the authorities is of key importance for the preservation of public confidence that the authorities are following the rule of law. The authorities need to avoid the impression that they are involved in or tolerate unlawful actions (see Varnava and Others, op. cit. 191).

2.4. Investigation into Katyń Crime conducted by Polish authorities Poland tries to ensure that the applicants can effectively take part in explaining the circumstances surrounding the deaths of their next of kin in a Polish criminal investigation into the Katyń Crime.

On 30 November 2004, the Polish authorities instituted their own investigation into the Katyń Crime. The investigation deals with the wilful deprivation of human life of circa 21,768 Polish citizens – POWs and civilians by state functionaries of the USSR – which constitutes a war crime and a crime against humanity.

The aim of the investigation is to fully explain the circumstances of the case, that is: to establish the names of all the victims, to identify the as yet unknown places of their execution and burial, to draw up a full list of persons who, under Polish law, enjoy injured party rights in these proceedings, to establish the names of all the persons involved in taking and enforcing the decision of 5 March 1940, to determine the scope of criminal liability of each of them and, if feasible, to bring the criminal offenders who are alive to justice.

The Polish investigation involves a number of actions carried out at home and abroad, the aim of which is to collect extensive evidence. a)

Until now a total of 2713 witnesses, including several applicants who are appearing in this case before the Court, have been questioned. The majority of those questioned are members of the families of the murdered persons. Witnesses are questioned both in Poland and abroad, where hearings are organised by members of the Polish diplomatic and consular staff or in the framework of international legal assistance.

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

419

b)

Documents and other evidence that could significantly bear upon the subject matter of the proceedings. In connection with the fact that the Polish authorities are in possession of 12 skulls exhumed in 1991 during exhumation works in Kharkov, DNA tests were commissioned to identify the human relics serving as evidence.

c)

Requests for international legal assistance were addressed to five countries: the Russian Federation, Belarus, Ukraine, the Federal Republic of Germany and the United States of America.

The Polish authorities have twice applied to the Russian authorities for legal assistance in their criminal proceedings, requesting that they be provided access to all the case files of the Central Military Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation’s investigation No. 159 into the Katyń Crime and to the decision to discontinue this investigation arguing that the evidence collected during this investigation is of great importance. a)

Poland first applied on 8 March 2005. In response to the application, the Chief Military Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation invited three prosecutors and a historian to Moscow from 9 until the 21 of October, 2005. During this visit, the Russian authorities made available to the Polish side only 67 volumes of the case files concerning the Katyń Crime case No. 159. They were examined and the relevant litigation documents were drawn up. The Russian side did not agree to make a Xerox-copies of the analyzed documents. The prosecutors from the Institute of National Remembrance were not provided access to all the evidence collected in proceedings No. 159, on the argument that some of the evidence was classified as secret. The decision to discontinue the investigation No. 159 dated 21 September 2004 that was not made available has also been classified as secret.

b)

On 30 September 2009, a second application was addressed to the Russian Federation’s authorities. It again requested legal assistance in criminal proceedings carried out by the Polish authorities consisting in full disclosure to the prosecutors of all the investigation files and the decision to discontinue it. In response, the Russian side handed over, in several tranches, a total of 148 volumes of copies of files of the Russian investigation No. 159 for the Polish investigation files. The contents of some of these documents had not been previously known to the Polish side. The first batch consisting of 67 volumes was handed over on 8 May 2010. These files are identical with the unclassified documentation of 67 volumes of case files No. 159, made available in October 2005 in Moscow to the prosecutors of the Institute of National Remembrance, the contents of which they examined, but could not copy. In the three successive tranches, 20, 50 and 11 volumes of certified by the Russian side Xerox-copies of documents from investigation No. 159 were handed over. At the present stage of the investigation, the examination of these files, with the help of sworn translators, has been concluded and documents have been selected for translation.

The copies of documents that were handed over by the Russians are fundamentally important for the investigation carried out by the Polish authorities in that they represent certified evidence, which if presented in its complete version would enable Polish authorities to make findings about the factual situation: the organisation of the Polish POW camps, the actual number

420

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka

of interred POWs, the living conditions, documents evidencing preparations for transportation of POWs to places of execution as part of the so-called “de-crowding of camps”, their particulars and dates of their deportation from NKVD camps or prisons, the circumstances under which the crime was committed and the particulars of the NKVD functionaries who took part in the transport, murder and burial of the bodies of the murdered persons, finding all the burial grounds of the victims, etc.

In 2004 the Commission published on its website an appeal to the relatives of victims of Katyń Crime and other persons having knowledge on important information concerning the events being the subject of the investigation to get in touch with the Commission’s local branches. The appeal is still valid.

3.

Violation of Article 3 of the Convention

In the Government’s opinion, a whole range of circumstances surrounding this case points to the fact that the applicants were subjected to inhuman treatment in the course of proceedings carried out by the Russian authorities. The long years of investigation that was discontinued in 2004, futile attempts at obtaining even the most basic information about the fate of their next of kin, all this leads us to argue that the guarantee under Article 3 of the Convention was breached with respect to the applicants, a group that includes people of old age.

At this point, the Government would like to share information with the Court about associations active in Poland and abroad whose aim is to disseminate information about the Katyń Crime. The need to spread this information is deeply rooted in the society. It will also help to better understand the sufferings inflicted upon the applicants as a result of Russian authorities’ actions.

The Katyń Crime was an occulted crime which, for political reasons, could not have been seriously addressed before 1989.19 The only official account of the 1940 events permitted by the Soviet and Polish propaganda put the blame for the crime on the German Third Reich.

Anyone questioning this version of events suffered serious reprisals and it was not until 1989 that associations grouping relatives of the victims, the so-called Katyń Families were allowed to organise themselves in Poland. Now, this community has grown to several thousand members. The descendants of the murdered persons and the very few spouses or siblings still alive today play the most active role. Over time, the younger generations joined their ranks. Association members exchange information that could be helpful in uncovering the truth about the Katyń Crime, are active in helping to identify and bring to justice those who are responsible, get hold of documents, identify other places where Polish POWs that had not been identified in Katyń were killed and buried. These persons also take a very active part in the Katyń investigation carried out by the Polish authorities.

The existence of many institutions, at home and abroad, grouping relatives of the victims demonstrates just how important it is for the family members and the Polish and other societies to learn the truth.

19

See e.g. “Katyn, A Crime Without Punishment”, A.M.Cienciala, N.S.Lebiedeva, W.Materski (ed), Yale Univeristy Press, 2007.

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights 4.

421

Violation of Article 38 of the Convention

Following the observations the Government of Poland had the honour of submitting to the Court previously and fully endorsing the reasoning of the Chamber contained in its judgment, the Government would like to complement these observations by indicating two important points.

As for the case, the obligation to cooperate with the European Court and to produce the requested data even if containing states secrets, is to be adequately weighed in proportion to the very nature of the fundamental human rights and freedoms at stake, the crimes themselves – e.g. war crimes and crimes against humanity – and with the obligation to fully investigate the loss of human life, as a consequence of these crimes. The Court has certainly identified a number of situations where there exists a continuous and actual public interest in maintaining the confidentiality of materials and/or decisions in domestic proceedings. In consideration of the Court’s guidelines for determining whether there exists an actual interest in classifying certain evidence as secret and in restricting applicants’ – and consequently the Court’s – access to it, if such evidence is necessary to examine the fairness of proceedings at the domestic level, the actual aim and scope of Russian investigation No. 159, whose fairness is currently subject to the Court’s assessment under the present proceedings, should be considered. With this in mind, the Government of the Republic of Poland wishes to draw the Court’s attention to a number of Russian documents, including decisions of the USSR’s Prosecutor’s Office, drafted at the very beginning of the Russian Katyń investigation.

Before the USSR’s Chief Military Prosecutor’s Office (since 1991: the Chief Military Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation – hereinafter the RF’s CMPO) took over the Russian investigation of the Katyń Crime in September 1990, local criminal proceedings had been carried out in different oblasts of the USSR into the circumstances surrounding the 1940 killings by the NKVD of Polish POWs detained since autumn 1939 in the territory of the USSR. Their mass graves were located in the territory of several oblasts in the USSR. Investigations into these cases had been carried out by the USSR’s Oblast Prosecutor’s Offices in Kharkov and Kalinin (since 1990: Tver). On 22 March, 1990, the Prosecutor’s Office in Kharkov opened investigation no. 189001 “in connection with the fact of [the existence] of mass graves of citizens executed in the forest and park area of Kharkov”. The Prosecutor’s Office provided the following reasons for instituting the proceedings: “the inhabitants of the town in the 60s’ [of the 20th century] found in this place skulls with bullet holes, bones and numerous items”. On 6 June 1990, the Prosecutor’s Office in Kalinin also started investigation no. 42813 following press reports of “the disappearance in the territory of the Kalinin Oblast in unexplained circumstances between 1939-40 of Polish POWs and civilians interned in the USSR”. The investigation was instituted following admission of the circumstance that the official duties of the employees of NKVD’s formations in the Kalinin Oblast included detaining the above-mentioned “Polish citizens”. Note should also be taken of two decisions of the USSR’s CMPO, dated 27 September 1990, concerning the fact that the investigation no. 189001 of the Prosecutor’s Office in Kharkov was taken over by the USSR’s CMPO. The USSR’S CMPO in explaining the reasons behind one of the decisions, wrote that the investigation “related to explaining the circumstances of executing Polish POWs, handed over to the USSR’S NKVD Directorate for Prisoners of War”. On 12 November, 1990, the

422

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka

USSR’s Oblast Prosecutor’s Office in Tver decided to hand over its investigation to the USSR’s CMPO. An article published in June 1990 in the Russian press about the “extermination by NKVD’s bodies, in the territory of the USSR, from 1939 to 1940 of Polish prisoners of war, some of whom had been detained in the camp in Ostashkov...” was given as the reason for handing over the investigation to the USSR’s CMPO. The Prosecutor’s Office in Tver further stated in its decision that although in 1939 the USSR and Poland had not been in a state of war, all Polish soldiers and civilians had been detained in POW camps and that that had been their status in the territory of the USSR. The decision made reference to 6287 Polish prisoners of war transported by the NKVD from the camp in Ostashkov, as well as the witness evidence of one of the NKVD’s employees, who claimed that Polish prisoners of war from the camp in Ostashkov had been executed and buried on the premises of one the NKVD’s dachas. Here it should be added that the following relatives of the applicants: Michał Adamczyk, Aleksander Wielebnowski and Szymon Tomaszewski had been held prisoners of war in the Ostashkov camp.

As it clearly follows from the above decisions issued by the Russian authorities at the end of 1990, after taking over the Kharkov and Tver investigations, USSR’s CMPO conducted investigation No. 159 whose main objective was to explain the circumstances of the 1940 execution of Polish prisoners of war and civilians by the NKVD in the territory of the USSR. The purpose and scope of the Russian investigation No. 159 was also identified in a number of other Russian documents drafted in the course of the Russian investigation. Among them, one should mention the minutes from the exhumations carried out in 1991 in Kharkov, Mednoye and Katyn, as well as the USSR’s CMPO’s motion dated 25 December, 1990, for legal assistance from the Government of the Republic of Poland, which included a statement that the Russian investigation concerned “the fate of the Polish prisoners of war detained in NKVD camps in Kozielsk, Starobielsk and Ostashkov from 1939 until 1940”.

Let it recall that all the relatives of the applicants had been detained in these three camps as prisoners of war.

In view of the fact that the Russian Federation refused to submit to the Court decision dated 21 September, 2004, and failed to submit any other source documents relating directly to the fate of the applicants’ relatives, and the fact that the Russian Federation in its official position presented to the Court (see letters dated 8 June, 2009, par. 5 and 29 January, 2009, par. 46) claimed that the aim of the Russian investigation into Katyń “had been neither to determine the fate of the Polish prisoners of war, nor to explain the circumstances of the death of the applicants’ relatives”, Poland wishes to draw the Court’s attention to the significant number of documents contained in the files of the Russian Katyń investigation No. 159, which directly concern the applicants’ relatives.

In order to explain the circumstances of the Katyń Crime, the Russian Federation had undertaken a number of procedural acts in legal proceedings. Although from today’s point of view, they should be considered as insufficient, they did nevertheless intend to explain the fate of individual persons as well as to shed light on all the circumstances in which decisions – most of all political – had been taken. Those decisions concerned entire groups, including Polish citizens who had become Soviet captives in autumn 1939. Although witnesses had been examined, search queries had been made in state archives, and experts’ opinions had

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

423

been commissioned to establish the course of events and to assess the relevant documents from the point of view of jurisprudence, history and medical sciences (see, the RF CMPO’s expert commission’s opinion on criminal case No. 159 of 2 August, 1993, the so-called Topornin’s expert opinion), and applications for foreign legal assistance had been filed, many procedural acts which are key to this case had not been carried out. Moreover, some materials collected in the case (including the above-mentioned Topornin’s expert opinion) were barred from evidence. Poland does not have knowledge of all the materials from the Russian criminal investigation. So far, the Russian Federation has handed over certified copies of 148 volumes of the case files, which, however, lack continuity. They contain about 45,000 folios.

These documents are now in the process of being translated and analysed. In the course of the proceedings, the applicants – relatives of the Katyń Crime victims – had attempted in vain to exercise their procedural rights vested in victims according to Russian law in order to be granted access to the case-file and procedural decisions (see, Article 42 of the Russian Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) of 2001). The preparatory proceedings were eventually discontinued on 21 September, 2004. The official decision to discontinue the investigation was announced to the public at a press conference on 11 March 2005 by a representative of the Chief Military Prosecutor’s Office of the Federal Republic. The contents of the decision to discontinue the investigation and its reasons were classified as “top secret”.

It transpires unequivocally from the documents referred to above that the purpose of the investigation was to explain the circumstances of the execution in 1940 by the NKVD in the territory of the USSR of Polish prisoners of war and civilians, including relatives of the applicants, whose bodies were found in mass graves in the towns located in the territory of what is now the Russian Federation and Ukraine. Criminal proceedings into this case were conducted on the basis of the then applicable Soviet Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP) of 1960, and later of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP) of 2001. The generally accepted purpose of any criminal proceedings is to explain the circumstances of a case in a comprehensive way and to identify, on the basis of true factual findings, the perpetrator of a crime and to hold him or her criminally accountable. This general rule has been reflected both in the CCP of 1960 applicable at the time the investigation was instituted and in the CCP of 2001 applicable at the time it was discontinued.

Against this background the above mentioned guidelines of the Court concerning the circumstances under which access to evidence collected during an investigation in the course of conducted proceedings could be restricted, may not justify classifying as secret part of the evidence collected during the investigation and the decision to discontinue the investigation dated 21 September, 2004. The proceedings whose fairness is being assessed by the Court were instituted to establish facts that occurred in 1940 and were not related to the current functions and operations of special services or the police. Therefore, even if a part of the used materials was classified by the former regime, it cannot be assumed that there exists a continuous and actual public interest in restricting access to materials, which the former regime classified as secret. Also unwarranted is the argument that public interest requires that present authorities classify documents relating to historical events which occurred in 1940. The present interests of the state do not justify classifying materials relating to events that occurred 71 years ago. It should be noted that the Russian Federation itself is willing to admit to the Court that it recognises these events as historical (see, the

424

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka

Russian Federation’s letter dated 29 January, 2009, par. 25, which mentions the resolve to establish “historical facts”). The indirect perpetrators of this crime as well as probably most of the NKVD officers who committed it are all dead now. The alleged public interest in classifying the evidence collected during the investigation which results in classifying the circumstances of the crime perpetrated by a totalitarian regime in the past was placed above the continuous and actual interest of the applicants whose aim was to learn the fate that had befallen on their closest relatives. The execution in 1940 of Polish prisoners of war and civilians by the NKVD was a crime, which for political reasons, and on account of the direct responsibility of the leaders of the USSR, could not have been explained before the collapse of the USSR. This was the reason for the lack of any reliable information about the fate of closest relatives that caused mental suffering to the families of the murdered persons for many years to come. Even after the crime was committed in 1940, the families of Polish officers continued to strongly believe from 1940 until 1943 that their relatives were alive (see, letters of families addressed to the emptied NKVD camps). After the discovery of mass graves in Katyń in 1943, the Soviet propaganda tried to demonstrate from 1943 until 1946 that Nazi Germany was responsible for murdering Polish prisoners of war (see, inter alia, the 1944 report of the Burdenko commission, the Soviet Prosecutor’s stance in 1946 at the Nuremberg Trials). The Soviet authorities did not disclose any information about the crime until 1990. Attempts to question the official line of the authorities on Katyń were bound to end in political repressions. Political transformations of the early 1990s made it possible to launch the Russian investigation, whose undeniable objective was to establish, in a conclusive way, the circumstances of the death of over 20,000 Polish citizens, including the applicants’ relatives.

We should not forget that the applicants represent the closest family members of the murdered persons: spouses, children and siblings. Most of them are now very old. Their first attempts to explain the circumstances of the Katyń Crime were made as early as during the Second World War and were continued at the risk of political repressions until the collapse of the Soviet Union. Throughout this period, the families of the victims kept alive their memory from one generation to the next and never ceased in their efforts to find out the full circumstances of the crime. By classifying the evidence collected during the investigation, the Russian authorities have deprived these people of the possibility to learn the circumstances of the death of their closest family members. Although their closest family members died during the Second World War, that is 71 years ago, the applicants are still not permitted to learn the circumstances of their death to this day, for reasons completely beyond their control.

The Court has held in its judgments many times that unless the facts of a case prove otherwise, a continued and actual public interest cannot be assumed to exist in restricting access to classified documents concerning past events. The selection of documents and their disclosure are in the power of today’s authorities. If a party whose interests are affected by classified materials is deprived of access to all or most of the said documents, his or her possibilities of finding out the actual circumstances of events that interest him or her and of opposing the version of events presented by the authorities will be seriously limited (see, Bobek v. Polska, judgment of 17.07.2007, appl. no. 68761/01, § 57). In the case at hand, the fact that the applicants have been denied access to decision dated 21 September, 2004, on discontinuation of investigation

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

425

No. 159 and to other source materials means that the applicants are not permitted to know the evidence established in the course of the investigation instituted by Russian authorities into the circumstances of the death of their closest family members. Failure to submit a copy of the decision to the Court by the Russian authorities certainly hinders effective proceedings, the purpose of which is to assess the fairness of the Russian authorities’ proceedings with regard to the applicants.

5.

Conclusions

In view of the above observations, the Government submit to the European Court of Human Rights that the applications nos. 55508/07 and 29520/09 should be fund admissible, in accordance with Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention. In any case, the Government allege that Article 2 of the Convention under its procedural limb, along with Articles 3 and 38 of the Convention, were all violated in the instant case.

Encl. Attachments nos. 1, 2 , 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14.

426

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka

Załącznik nr 2 – Pismo Głównej Prokuratury Wojskowej FR z 7 czerwca 2004 r. do Prokuratury Wojskowej Północnego Regionu Ukrainy w sprawie udzielenia pomocy prawnej. Str. 426-427.

Attachment no. 2 – Request for legal assistance dated 7 June 2004 from the Chief Military Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation to the Military Prosecutor’s Office of Ukraine’s Northern Region.

Pages 426-427.

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

427

428

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka

Załącznik nr 3 – Pismo Prokuratury Generalnej Ukrainy z 10 września 2004 r. do Głównej Prokuratury Wojskowej FR w sprawie wniosków o pomoc prawną. Str. 428-429.

Attachment no. 3 – Letter of 10 September 2004 from Ukraine’s General Prosecutor’s Office to the Chief Military Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation on the requests for legal assistance.

Pages 428-429.

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

429

430

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka

Załącznik nr 4 – Postanowienie Głównej Prokuratury Wojskowej FR z 2 sierpnia 2004 r. o włączeniu do akt sprawy nr 159 nadesłanych 13 tomów akt Prokuratury Wojskowej Północnego Regionu Ukrainy związanych ze znalezieniem szczątków 3435 polskich obywateli rozstrzelanych wiosną 1940 r.

Attachment no. 4 – Decision of 2 August 2004 of the Chief Military Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation to include 13 volumes of files of the Military Prosecutor’s Office of Ukraine’s Northern Region in the case-file of investigation No. 159. The 13 volumes of files relate to the discovery of human remains of 3,435 Polish citizens executed in the spring of 1940.

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

431

Załącznik nr 5 – Protokół Głównej Prokuratury Wojskowej FR z 2 sierpnia 2004 r. z oględzin 13 tomów akt przekazanych przez Generalną Prokuraturę Ukrainy związanych ze znalezieniem szczątków polskich obywateli w miejscowości Kuropaty pod Kijowem. Str. 431-434.

Attachment no. 5 – Minutes drawn up by the Chief Military Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation on 2 August 2004 from an examination of 13 volumes of files handed over by Ukraine’s General Prosecutor’s Office relating to the discovery of human remains of Polish citizens in the town of Kurapaty near Kiev. Pages 431-434.

432

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

433

434

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

435

Załącznik nr 6 – Pismo Krzysztofa Malewicza w sprawie rehabilitacji jego ojca Stanisława Malewicza wraz z odpowiedzią władz rosyjskich. Str. 435-439.

Attachment no. 6 – Request by Mr Krzysztof Malewicz to rehabilitate his father, Mr Stanisław Malewicz, and the Russian authorities’ reply. Pages 435-439.

436

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

437

438

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

439

440

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka

Załącznik nr 7 – Pismo mec. J. Szewczyka z 19 czerwca 2003 r. w sprawie ustalenia losu Antoniego Nawratila, Andrzeja Janowca i Stefana Greczyna wraz z odpowiedzią władz rosyjskich z 23 czerwca 2003 r. Str. 440-442.

Attachment no. 7 – Request by Mr J. Szewczyk lodged on 19 June 2003 to establish the fate of Mr Antoni Nawratil, Mr Andrzej Janowiec and Mr Stefan Greczyn, and the Russian authorities’ reply dated 23 June 2003. Pages 440-442.

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

441

442

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

443

Załącznik nr 8 – Pismo Krystyny Krzyszkowiak z 21 czerwca 1998 r. o przesłanie dokumentów dotyczących jej ojca, Michała Adamczyka wraz z odpowiedzią władz rosyjskich z 2 września 1998 r. Str. 443-448.

Attachment no. 8 – Request dated 21 June 1998 by Ms Krystyna Krzyszkowiak for documents concerning her father Mr Michał Adamczyk to be sent to her and the Russian authorities’ reply dated 2 September 1998. Pages 443-448.

444

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

445

446

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

447

448

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

449

Załącznik nr 9 – Wnioski wydziału Konsularnego Ambasady RP w Moskwie dotyczące miejsca pochówku oraz rehabilitacji Stanisława Malewicza i Stanisława Janickiego wraz z odpowiedziami władz rosyjskich. Str. 449-456.

Attachment no. 9 – Requests of the Embassy of the Republic of Poland’s Consular Section in Moscow to establish the place of burial and to rehabilitate Mr Stanisław Malewicz and Mr Stanisław Janicki and the Russian authorities’ replies. Pages 449-456.

450

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

451

452

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

453

454

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

455

456

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

457

Załącznik nr 10 – Pismo z 12 sierpnia 2004 r. Głównej Prokuratury Wojskowej FR do Instytutu Naukowo-Badawczego ds. Przestrzegania Praworządności o wydanie opinii eksperckiej dotyczącej rozumienia pojęcia ludobójstwa w kontekście prawa rosyjskiego i międzynarodowego. Str. 457-458.

Attachment no. 10 – Letter of 12 August 2004 from the Chief Military Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation to the Scientific and Research Institute for Observing Law and Order commissioning an expert opinion on interpreting the notion of genocide in the context of Russian and international law. Pages 457-458.

458

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

459

Załącznik nr 11 – Pismo przewodnie z 19 sierpnia 2004 r. Instytutu Naukowo-Badawczego ds. Przestrzegania Praworządności wraz z opinią dot. karnej kwalifikacji działań władz ZSRR w stosunku do grupy obywateli polskich wiosną 1940 r. Str. 459-462.

Attachment no. 11 – Cover letter dated 19 August 2004 from the Scientific and Research Institute for Observing Law and Order with enclosed opinion concerning the criminal qualification of the USSR’s actions involving a group of Polish citizens in the spring of 1940. Pages 459-462.

460

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

461

462

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

463

Załącznik nr 12 – Pismo z 16 sierpnia 2004 r. Głównej Prokuratury Wojskowej FR do Instytutu Historii Wojskowości Ministerstwa Obrony FR o wydanie opinii eksperckiej dotyczącej: oceny sytuacji polityczno-wojskowej w Europie na przełomie 1939/1940 r.; oceny decyzji władz naczelnych ZSRR

464

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka

o wejściu Armii Czerwonej na terytorium Polski; ogólnej liczby polskich obywateli na terytorium Zachodniej Ukrainy i Zachodniej Białorusi wg stanu na wrzesień 1939 r. oraz oceny uczestnictwa obywateli polskich w działaniach wojennych przeciwko ZSRR w czasie II wojny światowej.

Attachment no. 12 – Letter dated 16 August 2004 from the Chief Military Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation to the Institute of Military History of the Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation requesting an expert opinion on the political and military situation in Europe at the end of 1939 and the beginning of 1940; an assessment of the decision of the supreme authorities of the USSR on the Soviet Army entering the territory of Poland; the overall number of Polish citizens living on the territory of Western Ukraine and Western Belarus as at September 1939 and the assessment of the participation of Polish citizens in military operations against the USSR during World War Two.

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

465

Załącznik nr 13 – Pismo z 20 sierpnia 2004 r. Instytutu Historii Wojskowości Ministerstwa Obrony FR wraz z informacją analityczną o śmierci jeńców wojennych Armii Czerwonej w latach 1919-1921 w Polsce i jeńców wojennych obywateli Polski w 1939-1940 w ZSRR. Str. 465-482.

Attachment no. 13 – Letter dated 20 August 2004 from the Institute of Military History of the Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation with enclosed analytical opinion about the death of prisoners of war of the Red Army in 1919-1921 in Poland and of prisoners of war who were Polish citizens in 1939/1940 in the USSR. Pages 465-482.

466

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

467

468

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

469

470

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

471

472

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

473

474

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

475

476

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

477

478

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

479

480

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

481

482

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

483

Załącznik nr 14 – Postanowienie Głównej Prokuratury Wojskowej FR z 20 września 2004 r. dot. weryfikacji danych osobowych obywateli polskich przetrzymywanych w obozach w Ostaszkowie i Starobielsku. Str. 483-484.

Attachment no. 14 – Decision dated 20 September 2004 of the Chief Military Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation to validate personal data of Polish citizens detained in the Ostashkov and Starobelsk camps. Pages 483-484.

484

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

485

Stanowisko Rządu RP w sprawie Janowiec i inni p. Rosji przedstawione podczas rozprawy 13 lutego 2013 r. przed Wielką Izbą Europejskiego Trybunału Praw Człowieka w odpowiedzi na pytania Trybunału sformułowane w piśmie z 23 listopada 2012 r.

Oral Presentation by the Government of Poland to the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights in the case Janowiec and Others v. Russia at a hearing on 13 February 2013 in reply to the Court’s written questions dated 23 November 2012 The Republic of Poland participates in this case pursuant to Article 36(1) of the Convention, as it did before the Chamber. These oral submissions are intended to complement the written submissions dated 30 November 2012, bearing in mind the questions raised by the Grand Chamber concerning articles 2, 3 and 38 of the Convention. While Poland of course entirely supports the claims of the applicants, whose arguments are set out clearly and eloquently, they are hardly in need of reinforcement. We also find the materials submitted by the non-governmental organizations that have intervened in the proceedings to be helpful contributions to this important case.

It is entitled to intervene because the applicants are nationals of Poland. But Poland is here today to set the matter within a broader framework. As the Chamber decision notes, more than 20,000 people were murdered in what is known around the world as the Katyń massacre. The voice of the victims, and of their descendants, should also be heard today, and it is to ensure that this happens that Poland comes to the podium. The Katyń Crime holds a very important place in the recent history of our continent and the judgment the Grand Chamber will deliver should reflect this.

To be sure, it is not the only atrocity on such a scale to have been perpetrated in Europe in recent times. The Nazis were judged for many crimes at Nuremberg, as well as by national tribunals in many of the occupied countries and in Germany itself. More recently, atrocities perpetrated by some of the victors of the Second World War have also been prosecuted. The Court has had to consider the legality of such cases in its recent rulings in Kononov v. Latvia.

Other terrible atrocities have been perpetrated much closer to the present day. In a crime that in many respects resembles Katyń, more than 7,000 men and boys were summarily executed at Srebrenica in July 1995. Some of the perpetrators have already been convicted, and others are standing trial as we meet today.

The terrible irony in these proceedings is that it was the respondent State, then known as the Soviet Union, but which is continued in modern day Russia, that initially insisted upon punishing the perpetrators of the Katyń Crime. As preparations were underway for the great trial of the International Military Tribunal, at Nuremberg, in the autumn of 1945, the Soviet prosecutor insisted that the Katyń massacre be included in the indictment. The other three pros-

486

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka

ecutors, from the United States, France and the United Kingdom, were apparently reluctant to do this, but conceded the point. When the time came to prove the allegations, the Soviet prosecutor tendered a document his government had prepared as evidence of Nazi guilt. This is the Burdenko commission report, referred to in paragraphs 18 and 19 of the Chamber decision.

The Nazi defendants insisted that they be given the opportunity to produce evidence in reply, and two days of hearing were set aside in July 1946. No other single atrocity received so much attention during the Nuremberg trial. The Nazi defendants were allowed to call three witnesses, with the Soviet prosecutor allowed to call three in reply. The trial concluded a few weeks later. The judgment, issued on 30 September and 1 October 1946, is silent on the subject of the Katyń massacre.

Paragraph 18 of the Chamber decision is not quite right when it says that the charge was dismissed by the US and British judges for lack of evidence. There were four judges: a French and a Soviet judge sat alongside the judges from the United States and the United Kingdom. Moreover, the judgment did not provide any explanation. The silence on the matter was unanimous.

The Soviet judge, who produced a separate and dissenting opinion, might have been expected to speak to the point but did not do so.

Let me quote from the text included in the indictment of the Nuremberg Tribunal at the request of the Soviet Union: ‘In September 1941, 11,000 Polish officers who were prisoners of war were killed in the Katyń Forest near Smolensk’.1 In its most recent submission, Russia suggests a number of less than 2,000; the Grand Chamber might note its contention at Nuremberg about 11,000 and deem it estopped from making such cynical allegations. At Russia’s request, the Nazis were charged with the war crimes of murder and ill-treatment of prisoners of war for the Katyń Crime. Months later, introducing the Burdenko report during the trial, the Soviet prosecutor, Col Pokrovsky, said that ‘one of the most important criminal acts for which the major war criminals are responsible was the mass execution of Polish prisoners of war, shot in the Katyń Forest near Smolensk by the German fascist invaders’.2 The figure of 11,000 comes from the Burdenko report. The real numbers were actually much higher and it is now established that at least 21,857 Polish nationals were murdered at Katyń and the other atrocity sites.

The Soviet lie in the Nuremberg indictment persisted for many decades. The Chamber decision notes only that in 1959 a decision was taken in Moscow to destroy the records of the atrocity. This does not adequately describe the decades of denial and cover-up. Although Russia finally admitted the crime in 1990, the dishonesty of the past continues to colour the present litigation, as well as the continuing resistance of Russia to full disclosure of the facts and documents in its possession. Russia still has the key to the full truth about the Katyń Crime.

The Nuremberg Tribunal, by its silence, has bequeathed to the European Court of Human Rights an enormous responsibility. For the sake of the honesty and integrity of Europe, of its past and its future, in addition to the fundamental rights of the victims and their successors, it is incumbent on the European Court of Human Rights to contribute to accountability for 1 2

(19478) 1 IMT 27, at p. 54.

(1947) 7 IMT 425.

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

487

the Katyń forest massacre, if only by the indirect route of the procedural obligation in article 2 of the Convention. Anything short of this will compound the lies and the denials that the victims, the people of Poland and indeed the people of Europe as a whole have endured for nearly seven decades. That is why the debate about article 2 of the Convention is so crucial.

The first question asked of the parties by the Grand Chamber raises the issue of its jurisdiction to consider deaths that occurred before the entry into force of the Convention. Reference is made to paragraph 163 of the Šilih v. Slovenia judgment ([GC], no. 71463/01, judgment of 9 April 2009). A subsidiary question concerns whether the mass murder of Polish prisoners can be characterised as a ‘war crime’. Let us first turn to this subsidiary matter.

The first significant appearance of the notion of ‘war crimes’ at the level of international law appears in the Report of the Commission on Responsibilities which met during the 1919 Paris Peace Conference.3 The Commission noted that its list was not intended to be ‘complete and exhaustive’.4 These discussions resulted in article 228 of the Treaty of Versailles, which contemplated prosecution of what were called ‘violation of the laws and customs of war’, a term that is synonymous with war crimes. There cannot be much doubt that the murder of 20,000 prisoners is subsumed within the notion of war crimes as the term was already understood in 1919.

It appears that the Chamber accepted the conclusion that the Katyń killings were a war crime, although it would have been preferable for it to say this outright rather than use the curious formulation that it ‘had the features of a war crime’. As we have already noted, it was the Russians themselves who were the first to insist, at Nuremberg, on describing Katyń as a war crime. Answering the challenge from the Nazi defendants that prosecution of war crimes might violate the rule against retroactive criminality, the Nuremberg judges said: ‘That violations of these provisions constituted crimes for which the guilty individuals were punishable is too well settled to admit of argument.’5

The suggestion has been made that the Court is without competence to deal with matters of international humanitarian law. This case concerns article 2 of the Convention. The Court is not being asked to make a finding that there is a violation of the law of armed conflict.

A violation of the human right to life can occur in armed conflict, as article 15(2) of the European Convention implies. The Court has previously considered the scope of international crimes in considering the scope of article 7, for example, and there is nothing to prevent it doing so here.

We have included in our delegation today a renowned expert on the subject of war crimes and international criminal law, Professor William Schabas. Should the Court desire further clarification on these points, it might direct a question to him.

The Chamber indicated that the real interest in characterizing the Katyń massacre as an international crime is because, and I cite paragraph 139, ‘the reference of the underlying values of 3

Violations of the Laws and Customs of War, Reports of Majority and Dissenting Reports of America and Japanese Members of the Commission of Responsibilities, Conference of Paris, 1919, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1919, pp. 114-115.

4 Ibid, p. 115.

5 (1948) 22 IMT 411, at p. 497.

488

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka

the Convention indicates that, for such connection to be established, the event in question must be of a larger dimension than an ordinary criminal offence and constitute a negation of the very foundations of the Convention, such as for instance, war crimes or crimes against humanity’. Surely there can be no doubt that this applies. We would be astonished if the respondent State were to question this.

The core of the first question asked by the Grand Chamber points to an issue that was not addressed with precision by the Chamber. It focuses on the date of entry into force of the Convention, rather than date of the adoption of the Convention, or the date of signature or entry into force of the Convention with respect to a particular High Contracting Party.

We completely understand the concern of the Grand Chamber with an interpretation of the procedural obligation in article 2 that goes back in time long before the Convention was adopted or entered into force. Nevertheless, in Šilih v. Slovenia the Grand Chamber recognized the procedural obligation under article 2 as one that is separate and autonomous from the ‘interference’, a ‘detachable obligation arising out of Article 2’ which for these purposes becomes adjectival in nature. In this respect, the European Court adopted a position that has been accepted by other international human rights bodies, including the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and the United Nations Human Rights Committee. These authorities are set out thoroughly in the submissions of the applicants, and there is no need for us to rehearse them here.

Thus, the Grand Chamber accepted the existence of a procedural obligation with respect to loss of life occurring before the entry into force of the Convention for Slovenia. In Šilih v.

Slovenia the Grand Chamber spoke first of the need for a ‘genuine connection’ between the death and the entry into force for the respondent State.6 In Šilih, the temporal proximity was quite close – a matter of about a year. In the present case, obviously, the temporal dimension is much more distant. Yet there can be other compelling indications of a ‘genuine connection’.

Inevitably, the attempt by the Grand Chamber in Šilih to identify the applicable parameters with respect to the adjectival breach of the right to life was coloured by the facts in that case, which concerned a civil claim relating to medical negligence. It is difficult to compare such circumstances with one of the great atrocities to take place on European soil during the past century, and surely the single greatest atrocity for which there has yet to be any real accountability. We entirely endorse the remarks of the three dissenting judges in the Chamber: ‘the gravity and magnitude of the war crimes committed in 1940 in Katyń, Kharkov and Tver, coupled with the attitude of the Russian authorities after the entry into force of the Convention, warrant application of the special-circumstances clause in the last sentence of paragraph 163’.7 This is not some stale case, long forgotten and revived on the basis of old and well-known material. Take, for example, the so-called Ukrainian Katyń List consisting of 3,435 files of victims of the 1940 massacres to which we referred to in our written pleadings.

It must be clearly stated that the preserved archive documents explicitly point to the fact that 6 7

Šilih v. Slovenia [GC], judgment of 9.04.2009, appl. no. 71463/01, § 163.

Janowiec and Others v. Russia, judgment of 16.04.2012, appl. nos. 55508/07 and 29520/09, § 4.

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

489

the so-called Ukrainian Katyń List refers to the execution of 3,435 Polish citizens carried out in the territory of the Ukrainian SSR as part of the Katyń Crime.

Indeed, as noted by the Russian side, the list is not a prisoners’ dispatching list, i.e. a list according to which the persons registered on it were taken to execution. It was, however, drafted on the basis of dispatching lists, and thus constitutes a list of Polish citizens who were killed in Ukraine in 1940.

Here one must explain what exactly the Ukrainian Katyń List constitutes. It is a list of files of criminal cases (a total of 3,435 cases). In November 1940, i.e. already after the murder on Soviet territory of the prisoners against whom the cases were conducted, the files were sent from Ukraine to the NKVD Headquarters in Moscow.

The list has a very special characteristic – the personal data of each prisoner, whose case files were sent to Moscow is accompanied by a reference number made up of two parts, where the first part is the number of the dispatching list that includes his personal data, and the second part is his position on the list. For example, next to the personal data of Jan Obst (item no. 2112 on the Ukrainian Katyń List), the UKL lists the reference number 41/3-1, which means that the personal data of Jan Obst appear on dispatching list no. 041/3 (the official who drafted the UKL simplified matters for himself by omitting the “0” ahead of each dispatching list) in front of item 1, i.e. the personal data of Jan Obst are the first item on dispatching list no.

041/3. Thus the so-called Ukrainian Katyń List is a list of murdered persons, since appearing on the dispatching list meant being sentenced to death.

By grouping the names of murdered persons according to the dispatching list numbers assigned to said persons, Polish researchers of the Katyń case have found that there was a total of 33 lists, numbered 041/1 to 072/2, and that each list was made up of approx. 100 names.

In performing the extermination of almost 22,000 Polish prisoners, the NKVD used a special, continuous numbering system for dispatching lists, pursuant to which prisoners were sent to be executed; this includes both prisoners of war from the Kozelsk, Starobielsk and Ostashkov camps, as well as prisoners held in the so-called Western Ukraine and Western Belarus. The numbered references on the so-called Ukrainian Katyń List are part of a larger system of marking dispatching lists adopted for this operation, spanning the lists numbered 01 to 072/2.

In light of the above, the statement by the Russian side in point 6 of the letter dated 17 January 2013 – that the so-called Ukrainian Katyń List is not a list of persons who had been killed – is groundless and contravenes with the actual state of affairs. As a list of murdered Polish citizens, the document is closely related to the subject matter of case No. 159. Therefore, there were absolute grounds to include it, by the decision of 2 August 2004 (f. 195 vol. 157 of the files in case No. 159) together with other documents received by way of legal assistance from Ukraine, as evidence in case No. 159. There are no grounds on merit to question before the Court the decision taken – it must be emphasized – by a competent state body of the Russian Federation in charge of the Katyń Crime investigation, eight years after it was issued. The inclusion of these 13 volumes of evidence should be seen as a breakthrough in the proceedings in case No. 159 with respect to the murder of 3,435 Polish citizens, prisoners incarcerated in the so-called Western Ukraine. This made it possible to gain particularly significant knowledge about the persons killed, i.e. to determine their personal details and the numbers of dis-

490

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka

patching lists on the basis of which they were taken from the prisons to the execution sites.

By comparing the personal data of prisoners with the same dispatching list numbers, Polish historians have been able to reconstruct the contents of the missing lists from the operation to exterminate the Polish prisoners in Ukraine; these are the lists numbered: 041/1,2,3; 042; 043/1,2,3; 055/1,2,3,4,5; 056/1,2,3; 057/1,2,3; 064/1,2,3; 065/1,2,3; 066/1,2,3; 067/1,2; 071/1,2; 072/1,2.

Yet, the Russian prosecutors in charge of case No. 159 have not carried out any such analysis of the so-called Ukrainian Katyń List and did not take any actions that could establish and find these dispatching lists, even though the files for case No. 159 (f. 74 vol. 167) include a letter by the Head of the First Special Unit of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the USSR dated 20 July 1953 concerning such lists. The letter states that the Ukrainian Ministry of Internal Affairs returns to the Head of the First Special Unit of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the USSR twelve copies of protocols no. 41, 42, 43, 55, 56, 57, 64, 65, 66, 67, 71 and 72 totalling 479 folios, after having “conducted work as per the instructions” received in Moscow. An analysis of the letter unequivocally indicates that the twelve “protocols” marked with the above numbers are precisely the missing dispatching lists referring to the murder of 3,435 Polish citizens in the territory of Ukraine (the letter returning the lists refers simply to the first numbers of the lists, without providing a detailed description, i.e. by marking 041 instead of 041/1, 041/2 and 041/3).

In the course of the investigation conducted by Polish authorities into the Katyń Crime prosecutors examined the materials obtained by the Institute of National Remembrance (IPN) from the Autonomous State Archive of the Ukrainian Security Service in Kiev, revealing the same letter dated 20 July 1953 returning the 12 “protocols” (dispatching lists) and other documents pertaining thereto (see, Attachment no. 1 attached to the present submission). They include the letter sending these documents to Ukraine on 29 October 1952 and a number of lists dated 1939-1940 that include the personal details of Polish citizens along with arrest warrants.

In June 1953, these lists included crossings-out made in red pencil on the names of persons found on the so-called “Ukrainian Katyń List”. Officials of the Soviet Ministry of Internal Affairs drafted official memos on such occasions, including therein the numbers written next to the crossed-out data and citing that the crossings-out are made pursuant to the decision of the Head of the 1st “SO” (most probably “Investigative Unit”) of the Soviet Ministry of Interior.

An analysis of the complete documentation shows that the basis for crossing out the names from the lists and not including their data in the operational records was constituted by the dispatching lists sent to Ukraine in October 1952, i.e. the lists no. 041, 042, 043, 055, 056, 057, 064, 065, 066, 067, 071 and 072. The copies of 148 volumes of the files in case 159 – provided for the purposes of the Polis investigation – lack the described documentation referring to the so-called Ukrainian Katyń List, obtained by the IPN from the Autonomous State Archive of the Ukrainian Security Service in Kiev.

The handed-over copies of 148 volumes of case files do not include materials documenting not just a search for the abovementioned dispatching lists, but also taking measures that could have reconstructed them on the basis of information from the so-called Ukrainian Katyń List.

As regards the attempt to question the credibility of the so-called Ukrainian Katyń List, raised in point 7 of the above-mentioned Russian Memorandum dated 17 January 2013, the argu-

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

491

ments presented therein are completely unconvincing. The Russian side maintains that it has “established” that at least a few persons whose names appear on the so-called Ukrainian Katyń List were murdered in 1937 or were sentenced to imprisonment in 1941. These “findings” are not corroborated by the documents that have been submitted. For instance, according to the Russian side, Konstanty Babij, son of Paweł, born 1899, whose name is on the so-called Ukrainian Katyń List, was arrested on 23 March 1940, and then sentenced on 25 January 1941 to an eight-year prison term. These findings should be considered as a complete misunderstanding in view of the fact that the provided information concerns another person with the same name and surname, but who was born in a different year – 1903, and not in 1899 as indicated on the Ukrainian List.

The same applies to another person on the UKL: Dmitrij Bojko, son of Mikołaj, born 1883. The information provided by the Russian side that he was sentenced to 8 years imprisonment on 21 May 1941 in fact concerns another person: Dmitrij Bojko, born seven years later in 1890.

Another such example from the Ukrainian Katyń List is the case of Franko Sliwa, son of Iwan, born 1890. According to the Russian side, he was not murdered in 1940, as he was sentenced to death and executed in 1937. An analysis of the information referred to by the Russian side explicitly shows that we are once again dealing with another person, since the “Franz” (not Franko) Sliwa executed in 1937 was born in 1888. The final piece of evidence pointing to the fact that we are dealing with an outright mistake is the information about the proper Franko Sliwa, son of Iwan, born 1890, included in item 1793 in attachment no. 3 of the Russian side.

The information explicitly states that he was held in Stanyslaviv prison from 28 March 1940 to 7 June 1940, whereupon he was transported to the prison in Kiev. The fact that Franko Sliwa was transported on 7 June 1940 from the prison in Stanyslaviv to the prison in Kiev is confirmed by the annotation in the files for case 159, in item 100 of list no. 3 of Polish citizens arrested in 1939-1940 by the NKVD in Stanyslaviv Oblast and transported to the prison in Kiev (f. 26-27, vol. 168 – see Attachment no. 2 attached to the present submission) and the inscription in item 61 of the list of those arrested and transported to Kiev prison, included on folio 267-269 in vol. 163 of the files for case 159 – see Attachment no. 3 attached to the present submission.

Moreover, according to the Russian side, the man arrested by the NKVD on 5 October 1939 in Ternopil Oblast – Jan Adamczuk, son of Jan, born 1901 (listed on the ULK as Adamczuk) – “made his way towards Odessa” on 25 March 1940. In reality, according to information from the Ukrainian Interior Ministry’s Information Centre, on 25 March 1940 the arrested Jan Adamczuk “went” to Odessa, wherein “went” signifies that the man was transported from the prison in Ternopil to the prison in Odessa – and not released from prison, as suggested by the Russian side. A similar annotation as in the case of Jan Adamczyk can be found alongside the personal data of many people on the list of 2,439 Polish citizens arrested in 1939-1940 in the Stanyslaviv region (attachment no. 3 of the Russian side) – an identical inscription on transport to the prison in Odessa appears, for example, in items 15, 19, 22, 48, 52, 76, 143 of the said attachment.

Another claim by the Russian side that does not concur with reality is that Władysław Czapliński, son of Kazimierz, born 1895, was not a victim of the Katyń Crime, as he was arrested in Kiev in 1937 and sentenced to death by the Military Court of the Supreme Court of the

492

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka

USSR on an unknown date. According to the response from the Ukrainian Interior Ministry’s Information Centre, which is part of the files for case 159 (the Russian side attaches just the question, leaving out the answer; answer enclosed herein) it transpires that the Centre is only in possession of information about Włodzimierz (not Władysław) Czapliński, son of Kazimierz, born on 1898 (and not in 1895) in the Courland Province – i.e. that the personal data concern an altogether different person than the one specified in the question. Moreover, according to the response concerning Władysław Czapliński, son of Kazimierz, born 1895 issued by the Chief Information Centre of the Interior Ministry of the Russian Federation, as disclosed in included in the files for case 159 (f. 23, vol. 175 – see Attachment no. 4 attached to the present submission), it transpires that the man arrested in 1937 was indeed named Czapliński, but his first name was Włodzimierz, not Władysław, and that Włodzimierz Czapliński was born in 1895 in the Courland Province; Władysław Czapliński, son of Kazimierz – the man listed on the ULK – was born in Kraków in 1895. An analysis of the data from the Ukrainian and Russian Information Centres has shown that both statements refer to the same person, i.e. Włodzimierz Czapliński, son of Kazimierz, born 1898 or 1895 in the Courland Province, who was arrested on 16 December 1937 and sentenced to death on 15 January 1938 by the Soviet NKVD (the Russian acronym “WMN” signifies “maximum penalty”). The man listed on the UKL named Władysław Czapliński, son of Kazimierz, born 1895 in Kraków, was also a prisoner of the NKVD in 1940. This is proven by the information included in item 2114 in attachment no. 3 of the Russian side – it explicitly points to the fact that said Władysław Czapliński was first imprisoned in Stanyslaviv, wherefrom the was transported to the prison in Kiev on 28 July 1940. The fact that said Władysław Czapliński was transported from the prison in Stanyslaviv to the prison in Kiev on 28 July 1940 is also confirmed by the annotation included in the files for case 159, item 126 of list no. 3 of Polish citizens arrested in 1939-1940 by the NKVD in Stanyslaviv Oblast and transported to the prisons in Kiev (f. 26-27, vol. 168 – Attachment no. 2 attached to the present submission) and the inscription in item 76 of the list of those arrested and transported to Kiev prison, included on folios 267-269 in vol. 163 of case file 159 – see Attachment no. 3 attached to the present submission.

Another unsubstantiated claim by the Russian side is that documents other than the Ukrainian Katyń List provided from Ukraine are not significant for the investigation. This is yet another groundless statement which stems most probably from the fact that said documents have not been subject to an in-depth analysis. Indeed, it would suffice to browse through the questioned list of 2,439 Polish citizens arrested in the years 1939-1940 in Stanyslaviv Oblast (attachment no. 3 of the Russian side) to find out that they contain significant information about the persons listed on the so-called Ukrainian Katyń List, e.g. about the above-mentioned Franko Sliwa, son of Iwan (item 1793), the above-mentioned Władysław Czapliński, son of Kazimierz, born 1895 (item 2114), as well as about other people on the UKL – Kazimierz Abczyński – item 2, Józef Ahn – item 6, Tadeusz Karpiński – item 685, Anna Mucha – item 1374, Jan Ryś – item 1652, Franciszek Rogalski – item 1656).

The same is true about attachment no. 4, i.e. the list of 839 people arrested in 1939-1941 in the Rivne Oblast. It includes detailed information on the fate of selected persons from the so-called Ukrainian List, e.g. Józef Chytry (item 28), Bronisław Bober (item 50), Stanisław Liniewicz (item 136), Michał Pawluk (item 246), Karol Taube (item 272), Franciszek Paszkiel (item 788) and others.

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

493

Connections with the subject matter of the investigation are also visible in attachment no. 5 – the list of 428 inhabitants of Rivne Oblast of Polish nationality who were victims of repression in 1939-1941. The list includes the personal data of persons who are also present on the Ukrainian Katyń List: Włodzimierz Kaltenberg, Stanisław Wójcik, Władysław Dąbrowski, Jan Kupiński.

The questioned comprehensive expert opinion by court-appointed medical experts (attachment no. 6 of the Russian side) provides – contrary to what the Russian side maintains – information important for establishing the fate of Polish citizens whose names are on the so-called Ukrainian Katyń List, namely, finding their burial place. Indeed, the expert opinion irrefutably points to the fact that Polish-made objects were unearthed during the exhumation of the victims of Stalinist oppression in Bykivnia (outside Kiev). Since, as it transpires from separate documents – Polish citizens from the so-called Ukrainian Katyń List were murdered inter alia in the prison in Kiev, this gave reason to believe that they were interred in Bykivnia, as it was there that prisoners murdered in the Kiev prison were buried from 1937 onwards.

At the time the opinion of court-appointed medical experts was added to the evidence collected in the course of the investigation, the relation between Bykivnia and the murder of people who were on the so-called Ukrainian Katyń List had already been established. This is because many Polish-made objects were recovered from the site as early as during the first exhumation work in 1971. Key significance is held by the finding in one of the mass graves of a driver’s licence (permit for the operation of motor vehicles) belonging to the above-mentioned Franciszek Paszkiel, listed on the UKL under item 2243. In 1989, for the purposes of the investigation carried out by the Ukrainian prosecutors’ office with reference no. 50 – 0092 concerning the murder of persons whose bodies were buried in Bykivnia (“Bykivnia case”), this document was subject to an analysis by forensic experts specializing in document analysis. The experts succeeded in deciphering the document. It should be added that the above-mentioned decision and expert opinion were disclosed by IPN prosecutors in November 2006 in Kiev during their examination of the Bykivnia case files (ref. no. 50 – 0092; f.116-131 vol.9); they later received copies of the selected documents. Such documentation referring to the driver’s licence of Franciszek Paszkiel was not found in the copies of the 148 volumes of files in case No. 159 received from the Russian side.

Moreover, the investigation files No. 159 (f.129-143 vol.167) include an expert opinion in dentistry from the Sehn Institute of Forensic Research dated 18 February 1997 and issued for the purposes of case no. 50 – 0092 concerning Bykovnia. The opinion notes that the evidence in the form of dentures secured during the digs held in Bykivnia in 1971, 1987 and 1989 (bridges, crowns, dentures) could have been produced for representatives of the Polish middle class due to the dentistry techniques used, including the use of certain Polish dentistry patents. The opinion, which was included as evidence in case No. 159, together with the uncovering in Bykivnia of numerous Polish-made objects, leads to the warranted conclusion that murdered Polish citizens were buried in Bykivnia.

Another circumstance linking Bykivnia with case No. 159 was the inclusion in the case files of the letter from the Military Prosecutor’s Office for the Northern Region of Ukraine dated 29 July 2004. The letter contains more detailed information about archival, exploratory and research work carried out by Polish and Ukrainian experts in Bykivnia in 2001 (f. 12-13 v. 157 of case file No. 159) and their findings, together with copies of a dozen or so documents (f.1430 vol. 157 of files in case No. 159). It transpires from this information that one of the graves

494

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka

included fragments of Polish clothes, shoes, and personal belongings, including 141 knee-high Polish officers’ boots, fragments of Polish uniforms and civilian clothing, pieces of paper with Polish writing, Polish coins. The recovered items were sent to Poland for examination; the results of these examinations were unknown to the Ukrainian prosecutors’ office. Despite their knowledge of this, the prosecutors in charge of case No. 159 did not apply to the relevant Polish authorities for a full documentation of the work, its results, and the expert opinions received. In the course of their work in Bykivnia in 2001, Polish experts managed to locate and explore at the cemetery in Bykivnia a total of 70 mass graves that were recognized as Polish graves owing to the items found therein. These graves were uncovered to hold the remains of over 1,994 murdered Polish citizens; over 5,400 items of Polish origin were also found, including fragments of Polish uniforms, numerous uniform buttons with the eagle emblem, military boots, Polish coins, holy medals, crosses, and personal belongings with the names of Polish companies written in the Latin alphabet. When they explored the graves, the researchers found objects belonging to Polish citizens whose names are on the so-called Ukrainian Katyń List, including, inter alia, a military ID tag (“dog tag”) belonging to Józef Naglik (item 2033 on ULK), or a comb with the engraved names of 4 persons (F. Strzelecki – item 2847, L. Dworzak – item 858, S. Grankowski – item 780, B. Szczyradłowski – item 3293 on ULK, repsectively), a toothbrush with the engraved name of J. Łobaza (item 1716 on ULK) and a badge belonging to State Police officer Mikołaj Cholewa (item 3127 on ULK). These findings have remained outside the field of interest of the Russian prosecutor’s office. It did not undertake any evidence-related initiatives aimed at broadening its knowledge of the exploration of the Bykivnia mass graves conducted by Polish and Ukrainian specialists. Requesting new materials in this respect from the Polish Council for the Protection of Struggle and Martyrdom Sites would make it possible to confirm the thesis that Bykivnia is the burial site of persons listed on the so-called Ukrainian Katyń List. Taking into account the appearance of new circumstances, namely the discovery of objects that identified prisoners who were murdered in the Katyń Crime in Ukraine, these matters should be evaluated by a prosecutor in the context of the case No. 159 discontinued in 2004 and its continuation. Moreover, accounting for the appearance of new circumstances in the form of the discovery of items identifying prisoners murdered as part of the Katyń Crime in the territory of Ukraine, said issues should be subject to the assessment of a prosecutor in the context of re-launching and conducting further the case No. 159, which was discontinued in 2004.

An analysis of attachment no. 2 (a list of 122 inmates of prison no. 1 in Lvov) and the handwritten annotations therein leads to the conclusion that, with all probability, it constitutes a list of prisoners from that prison who were murdered during its evacuation (the date of 26 June 1941 is marked therein). This is also underscored by the information from the Index of Victims of Soviet Repression operated by the KARTA Centre in Warsaw, pertaining to one of the persons on the list: Wacław Piątkiewicz, son of Stanisław, born 1908, was imprisoned in the penitentiary in question and murdered therein on 26 June 1941. The fact that the Ukrainian prosecutor’s office provided this list, which is most probably unconnected with the subject matter of investigation No. 159 – in no way undermines the credibility of this document or the remaining documents provided by way of legal assistance. It should be emphasized that it was the obligation of the Russian prosecutor’s office – as the body responsible for conducting the investigation – to analyze and verify the extensive documentary evidence received through

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

495

this channel. The copies of the 148 volumes of files in case No. 159 that have been received so far do not provide any traces of such activities.

The Court may not exercise jurisdiction over the interference with article 2 under material head because of the presumption of non-retroactivity of treaties. But, as has been held, this does not neutralize its jurisdiction over the ‘procedural obligation’ associated with such an interference. As a general rule, this procedural obligation will exist from the time of the interference with the right to life although it may continue in time until the date when the Convention enters into force and then afterwards. A distinction must be made between the existence of the obligation and the Court’s jurisdiction to adjudicate a violation of the obligation. In this case, when did the obligation begin? As far as the respondent State, Russia, is concerned, it began in 1943, when the Burdenko commission was sent to investigate. It certainly existed in 1945, when Russia insisted that the crime be prosecuted. The reason it continues to the present day is because of the many years of lies and concealment of the truth, followed by a period of only partial disclosure of the relevant evidence.

Over a period of several years in the 1990s, Russia went through a profound political transformation. One of the important features was its admission, after five decades of abject denial, that the Soviet leadership was responsible for the mass executions of Polish nationals in 1940.

This was part of the reform process that led to Russia’s admission into the Council of Europe and its ratification of the European Convention on Human Rights. Is it plausible that Russia could have been admitted to the Council of Europe had it not acknowledged authorship of the Katyń Crime?

Establishment of the truth about the Katyń Crime has remained an important issue since that time, as the facts alleged in these proceedings demonstrate. The declaration in the Russian State Duma on 26 November 2010, a little more than two years ago today, attests to this.8 It notes that ‘[i]n the early 1990s’ – that is, at the time Russia was preparing its candidacy for the Council of Europe – ‘our country made great strides towards the establishment of the truth about the Katyń tragedy’, recognising it as ‘an arbitrary act by a totalitarian state’. The Duma confirmed that part of the record still remains concealed, and it affirmed the need ‘to continue studying the archives, verifying the lists of victims, restoring the good names of those who perished in Katyń and other places, and uncovering the circumstances of the tragedy’.

The nature of the interference – an international atrocity crime – provides another strong criterion to be weighed in the assessment of a genuine connection. The interference in Šilih v.

Slovenia was not in such a category, and it seems reasonable therefore that a closer temporal connection be retained. Virtually all national legal systems impose statutory limitations with respect to negligence claims, some of them quite strict. With the passage of time, they lose their salience.

This cannot be the case with war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. International law prohibits any form of statutory limitation.9 One important reason for this is the fact that States often conceal the truth and prevent it being uncovered, through amnesty and similar 8 9

Janowiec and Others v. Russia, op.cit., § 71.

Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, (2002) 2187 UNTS 90, art. 29.

496

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka

measures, or sheer denial and dishonesty, as in the present case.

It is unlikely that the Grand Chamber will ever get a better opportunity to explain the scope of the seemingly enigmatic words in paragraph 163 of the Šilih v. Slovenia judgment, where it says that ‘in certain circumstances, the connection could also be based on the need to ensure that the guarantees and the underlying values of the Convention are protected in a real and effective manner’.

Necessarily, this is a test that depends upon the circumstances of each individual case. Wisely, in Šilih v. Slovenia, the Court left itself a degree of flexibility and did not foreclose the possibility of addressing the procedural obligation under article 2 with respect to any particular interference by setting a precise date that might result in a formulaic response. The suggestion that 3 September 1953, the date of entry into force of the Convention, might fulfil a useful purpose here simply returns the Court to the straightjacket that was suggested by the respondent State in Šilih v. Slovenia. It replaces one inappropriate date – the entry into force for the respondent State – with another.

Poland suggests that the Court adopt a functional approach to this problem, one that resists an essentially technical or procedural solution and that takes into account the nature of the substantive infringement of article 2. There is nothing uncertain about such a standard; indeed, an emphasis on this factor will assist the Court in establishing legal certainty with respect to pre-ratification interferences with ‘one of the basic values of the democratic societies making up the Council of Europe’.10 Question No. 2 concerning the effectiveness of the Russian investigation the Polish Government regrets to reiterate that the Russian Katyń investigation has not been conducted effectively. In our written observations on this, we already pointed out several instances of this lack of effectiveness. Now we would like only to emphasize, as did one of the third parties, that there still are possibilities to investigate crimes committed in the distant past under previous regimes.

We would also like to draw the Grand Chamber’s attention to endeavours of the Polish Commission for the Prosecution of Crimes against the Polish Nation established in 1998. Prosecutors of the Commission conduct investigations into Communist, Nazi and other crimes against peace and humanity or war crimes, committed by Communist state officials, and by security bodies of the German Third Reich and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics between 1 September 1939 and 31 July 1990.

Contrary to the statements’ of the Russian Federation public international law does not oblige domestic authorities to discontinue criminal proceedings due to the suspects’ death. The preamble to the law that regulates the prosecution of Communist and Nazi crimes by Polish authorities provides for, as one of the grounds for prosecution, the obligation of the Polish state to compensate all the injured parties whose injuries resulted from a state violating human 10

McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 27.09.1995, appl. no. 19009/04, Series A no. 324, § 147.

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

497

rights. This obligation results from the conviction that no unlawful act committed by a state against citizens may be protected as secret, nor can it lapse. The Polish Institute of National Remembrance is empowered by law not only to prosecute those who are guilty of crimes, but also to provide a comprehensive explanation of the circumstances of the case, in particular to determine who the injured parties were. Consequently, the death of a suspect or a defendant is not an obstacle in the pursuit of this goal. Proceedings are discontinued only after a comprehensive explanation of all the circumstances.

The efforts of the Institute’s prosecutors have resulted in filing between 2000 and 2012 more than 173 bills of indictment against 189 persons for communists crimes committed in the years 1939-1953. In the result of the conducted proceedings 124 persons were convicted and 44 cases were discontinued due to the deaths of the accused. The Commission filled also 2 bills of indictment against 2 persons for committing Nazi crimes. One of the accused was sentenced in 2002 to 8 years of imprisonment, the second proceedings were discontinued before the court due to the accused’ death.

Questions concerning Article 3 of the Convention In the opinion of the Government of Poland taking into account the way of behaviour of the Russian authorities as described in the Chamber’s judgment there can be no doubts that all the applicants were subject to a form of degrading treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention in connection with their attempts to obtain information about the fate of their relatives.

Answering in a most diligent way the Court’s question concerning Article 38 of the Convention, we would like here only to supplement our written observations.

Firstly, it must be noted that the Russian Federation’s authorities have, even during proceedings before the ECHR, presented contradictory information as to who issued the decision to classify the decision of the Chief Military Prosecutor’s Office dated 21 September 2004 to discontinue the case No. 159 (the “Katyń case”), as well as when said decision was issued.

It transpires from the position of the Russian Federation submitted in the Written Submission dated 19 March 2010 that on 22 December 2004, by a decision of the Inter-Departmental Commission on the Protection of State Secrets, 36 volumes of criminal case No. 159 were classified as “top secret” due to the fact that they include documents with information constituting a state secret. The ruling of 21 September 2004 to discontinue the criminal case was one of those documents and is contained in volume 183 of the criminal case file.

Meanwhile the Russian Federation’s Written Submission of 30 November 2012 contains information that the decision of 21 September 2004 was among the documents in volume no.

183 of the case file classified as “top secret” by the Chief Military Prosecutor’s Office after the discontinuation of the proceedings. Also pursuant to the ruling of the Moscow Municipal Court dated 2 November 2010 on case no. 30182cc/2-2010, the decision to classify all of the materials pertaining to case No. 159 was taken by the Chief Military Prosecutor’s Office, based on the conclusions made by a commission of specialists from the Federal Security Service of

498

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka

the Russian Federation. Later, the Chief Military Prosecutor’s Office submitted a motion to the Russian Inter-Departmental Commission on the Protection of State Secrets with a view to verifying the legitimacy of the classification decision. Pursuant to the Resolution of the Inter-Departmental Commission on the Protection of State Secrets dated 22 December 2004, the decision was made to declassify 147 of 183 volumes of case files due to the lack therein of information constituting a state secret.

Regardless of who decided to classify the decision to discontinue the case and when, the decision itself is incompatible with the requirements of Russian law.

First of all, the decision constitutes a violation of substantive law. Pursuant to Article 6 of the Federal Act on State Secrets, the recognition of information as a state secret and its classification as a state secret is lawful if and only if such information concerns a category of cases explicitly defined by law as a state secret. The list of information constituting a state secret is included in Article 5 of said act. Article 7, meanwhile, specifies the information that cannot be classified as a state secret.

Pursuant to Article 5 of the Law, the following information constitutes a state secret: 1) information in the military field; 2) information in the field of economy, science and technology; 3) information in the field of foreign policy and economy; 4) information on intelligence, counter-intelligence, and operational/reconnaissance activities, as well as the fight against terrorism. This provision provides a detailed list of information that can be included in the individual categories. At the same time, Article 7 of the Act includes a list of information that cannot be deemed a state secret and cannot be classified. Pursuant to this provision, it is forbidden to classify as a state secret i.a. information on violations of human and civil rights and liberties, as well as information on any violation of law by public authorities and their officials.

Article 213 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, meanwhile, defines the formal requirements that a decision to terminate a criminal case must fulfil. The decision shall specify: the date and place of passing the resolution; the post, surname, and initials of the person who has passed the resolution; the circumstances which have served as a reason and the ground for the institution of the criminal case; the paragraph, section and article of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation dealing with the crime constituting the premise to institute the criminal case; the results of the preliminary investigation with an indication of the data on the persons with respect to whom the criminal prosecution was conducted; the applied preventive measures; the paragraph, section and article of the Code on the ground of which the criminal case and/ or the criminal prosecution is terminated; the decision on cancelling the preventive measures and the arrest of property and of correspondence, the temporary dismissal from the post, the monitoring and recording of the discussions; the decision on material evidence; the procedure for filing an appeal against the resolution in question.

An analysis of the above provisions of the Act on State Secrets and the Criminal Procedure Code leads to the conclusion that the decision of 21 September 2004 to discontinue proceedings could not include information classified as a state secret. Even if it did include data on the persons with respect to whom the criminal prosecution was conducted, this could not constitute a premise to classify the decision as a document that includes a state secret. According to

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

499

publically available information, high-ranking Soviet officials were identified as the suspects in the ruling to discontinue the case. Any information on such persons concerns the period up to the year 1970. Therefore, on the date of issuing the decision, the maximum 30-year classification period for such information, specified under Article 13 of said Act, had already elapsed.

Such an interpretation of the Classified Information Protection Act was reaffirmed in the latest ruling of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated 15 January 2013.

It may simultaneously be assumed that the information on the persons with respect to whom the criminal prosecution was conducted, may be protected under laws on information protection – seeing as they concern personal data – but not under laws on state secrets. In such situations, however, there exists the established practice of removing personal data from the published procedural or court documents. There was no reason not to proceed likewise in the situation in question. Moreover, not indicating the classification level on case-related materials does not automatically signify open access to such documents. Access to case files is regulated by the provisions of procedural law.

Whether or not a given piece of information may be covered by protection under Article 5 of the Act is subject to Article 7 of said Act. Pursuant to the positions and information presented by the Russian authorities on various levels, the decision to discontinue the case contains information on high-ranking Soviet officials who were accused of issuing the order to execute Polish citizens, as well as evidence which served as the basis for the case to prove the respective persons guilty. Such information is included in the final and binding ruling of the Moscow Municipal Court dated 2 November 2010 on case no. 3-0182cc/2-2010, according to which during the proceedings on case No. 159 the actions of specified, high-ranking Soviet officials were considered as an abuse of power with severe consequence due to particularly aggravating circumstances, pursuant to Articles 193-197 item „b” of the Criminal Code of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (1926). Such information is also included in para. 34 of the Memorandum of the Russian authorities recently provided to the Court.

In light of these claims, it should be recognized that, even if the decision of 21 September 2004 does include information constituting a state secret pursuant to Article 5 of the abovementioned Act, Article 7 of the same Act would prohibit its classification as secret due to the fact that – as admitted by the Russian authorities themselves – the ruling includes information on the violations of human and civil rights and liberties, as well as information on the violation of law by public authorities and their officials.

Secondly, the ruling in question is unlawful under Russian law as it constitutes a violation of formal law. Pursuant to Article 6 of the Act, one of the premises for the recognition of a piece of information as a state secret is the legitimacy of such a decision. The legitimacy of classifying a document as secret is governed by the purposefulness of classifying specific pieces of information. Upon taking such a decision, the authorities must take into account all of the potential consequences, while also bearing in mind the key interests of the state, society, and citizens. It transpires from the above provision that the decision to classify information should include the motives for issuing such a decision. However, it seems that the Chief Military Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation did not take a special decision to classify as secret the materials of the proceedings, including the decision to discontinue the case. Due to the fact that the Russian authorities have not submitted any such decision to the Court, and have

500

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka

claimed in the course of domestic proceedings that such decisions do not exist, it should be assumed that the materials were classified as secret only by marking them with the relevant classification level, i.e. in violation of the established procedure.

Moreover, it should be noted that the classification of the file materials concerns events that took place 73 years ago and which by no means have any bearing on the present security of the Russian State. There is no justification under the Convention to place the alleged public interest to protect the circumstances and suspects of the crime perpetrated by a totalitarian regime above the continuing interest of the applicants to learn the fate of their closest relatives below.

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

501

Załącznik nr 1 – Pismo z 20 lipca 1953 r. Naczelnika I Specjalnego Oddziału Ministerstwa Spraw Wewnętrznych Ukraińskiej SRR do Naczelnika I Specjalnego Oddziału Ministerstwa Spraw Wewnętrznych ZSRR informujące o zwrocie dwunastu kopii „protokołów” (list dyspozycyjnych) zawierających informacje dotyczące zamordowania 3435 obywateli polskich na terytorium Ukrainy.

Attachment no. 1 – Letter of 20 July 1953 of the Head of the First Special Unit of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Ukrainian SSR to the Head of the First Special Unit of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the USSR returning twelve dispatching lists referring to the murder of 3,435 Polish citizens in the territory of Ukraine.

502

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka

Załącznik nr 2 – Wykaz nr 3 obywateli polskich aresztowanych w latach 1939-1940 przez NKWD w obwodzie stanisławowskim i przewiezionych do więzień w Kijowie. Str. 502-505.

Attachment no. 2 – List no. 3 of Polish citizens arrested in 1939-1940 by the NKVD in Stanyslaviv Oblast and transported do Kiev’s city prisons. Pages 502-505.

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

503

504

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

505

506

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka

Załącznik nr 3 – Wykaz osób aresztowanych za przestępstwa kontrrewolucyjne w latach 1939-1941 w obwodzie stanisławowskim and przewiezionych do dalszego zatrzymania w więzieniach Kijowa do dyspozycji NKWD Ukraińskiej SRR. Str. 506-508.

Attachment no. 3 – A list of people arrested for counterrevolutionary crimes in 1939-1941 in the Stanyslaviv Oblast and transported to be detained further in Kiev’s city prisons to remain available for the Ukrainian SSR’s NKVD. Pages 506-508.

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

507

508

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka

The Katyń Crime before the European Court of Human Rights

509

Załącznik nr 4 – Odpowiedź z 21 sierpnia 2004 r. Głównego Centrum Informacyjnego Ministerstwa Spraw Wewnętrznych FR dotycząca Władysława Czaplińskiego s. Kazimierza ur. w 1895 r. Str. 509-510.

Attachment no. 4 – Response dated 21 August 2004 concerning Władysław Czapliński, the son of Kazimierz, born in 1895, issued by the Chief Information Centre of the Interior Ministry of the Russian Federation. Pages 509-510.

510

Zbrodnia Katyńska przed Europejskim Trybunałem Praw Człowieka

Wydawca / Publisher: Ministerstwo Spraw Zagranicznych – Departament do spraw Postępowań przed Międzynarodowymi Organami Ochrony Praw Człowieka Ministry of Foreign Affairs – Department for Proceedings before International Human Rights Protection Bodies Tłumaczenie / Translation: Ministerstwo Spraw Zagranicznych – Biuro Archiwum i Zarzadzania Informacją Ministry of Foreign Affairs – Bureau of Archives and Information Management Redakcja / Editors: Aleksandra Mężykowska, Piotr Kobielski Dokumenty źródłowe pochodzą ze zbiorów Instytutu Pamięci Narodowej – Oddziałowej Komisji Ścigania Zbrodni przeciwko Narodowi Polskiemu w Warszawie oraz Rady Ochrony Pamięci Walk i Męczeństwa The documents are from the archives of the Institute of National Rembrance-Branch Comission for the Prosecution of Crimes against the Polish Nation in Warsaw and the Council for the Protection of Struggle and Martyrdom Sites Zdjęcia oraz korespondencja osobista zostały przekazane przez Skarżących w sprawie Janowiec i inni przeciwko Rosji (skargi nr 55508/07 i 29520/09) i wykorzystane za ich zgodą.

The photographs and private correspondence were made available by the applicants in case Janowiec and Others v. Russia (applications nos. 55508/07 i 29520/09) and were used with their permission. © Ministerstwo Spraw Zagranicznych, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2015 www.msz.gov.pl Publikacja ma charakter niekomercyjny i nie jest przeznaczona do obrotu handlowego / This publication is not for commercial use and is not for sale.

Druk / Printing: Agencja Reklamowo-Wydawnicza Arkadiusz Grzegorczyk ul. gen. Kutrzeby 15, 05-082 Stare Babice ISBN 978-83-63743-73-4