EXPERIENCE OF THE WORKING OF THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS ACT. 1993 j 13 are also attached to the present report (see Annexure 1). However, it is worthwhile here to highlight some of those proposals for, if they are not acted upon, the purposes of the Act will continue to lend themselves to subversion. 2,12 These proposals have, inter alia, related to the following matters: • The definition of'armed forces' [section 2.1(a)]: the Commission has proposed that the definition should include only the 'naval, military and air forces' and exclude the para-military forces. As indicated above, the present wording of the Act, both in respect of section 2.1(a) and in respect of section 19, has been seriously criticised in a variety of forums, including treaty bodies. This has had an adverse effect on the credibility of the Government of India and on its commitment to protect human rights. The limitations imposed on the Commission by virtue of these provisions of the Act have also been widely and repeatedly commented upon. • The definition of 'International Covenants' [section 2,1(f)]: this is at present limited to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 1966. The Commission has proposed that the wording be expanded to include 'and any other Covenant or Convention which has been, or may hereafter be, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations.' Such a change would also be in keeping with the law of the land as laid down in the landmark judgement of the Supreme Court in which it was held: 'Any international convention not inconsistent with the fundamental rights and in harmony with their spirit must be read into these provisions to enlarge the meaning and content thereof... regard must be had to international conventions and norms for construing domestic law when there is no inconsistency between them and there is a void in the domestic laws' [Vishaka vs. State of Rajasthan 1997(6)SCC 241] • In respect of the provisions relating to the 'Constitution of a National Human Rights Commission' [sections 3-11], the Commission has made specific recommendations in order to further clarify the qualifications needed in respect of its non-judicial members and to underline the need to reflect the pluralistic character of the polity of the country in the composition. These ANNUAL REPORT 2001-2002