Annual Report 1999-2000 the death of persons while in their custody. Such a system of accountability, as observed earlier by the Commission, would add to the credibility and transparency of the actions of the armed forces and also prevent propagandist and unsubstantiated charges being made against them. The Memorandum of Action Taken, however, reiterates the view that the Government of India is transparent in dealing with all complaints of allegations of custodial death or rape by the armed forces, that all such complaints are enquired into and action taken against persons found guilty and that "it is, therefore, felt that a procedure for dealing with the armed forces different from that provided in the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 is not necessary". 3.10 There is clearly, at present, a difference of opinion between the Commission and the Central Government on this matter, with the Commission believing that there is need for greater transparency and accountability. The Commission has, therefore, proposed an amendment to the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, in respea of the armed forces, and urges that the recommendations made by it in respect of this matter and its statute more generally, be acted on without delay. This is an issue of great importance to the credibility of the Government and of its commitment to the proper respect for human rights. It is, therefore, a matter that should speedily come before Parliament, in the form of amendments to the statute as recommended by the Commission. 3.11 In the mean^vhile, it is important to place on record, that during the period under review, the Commission—after considering with care the complaints that it received against the armed forces, including the para-military forces—made specific recommendations in respect of four cases. Two of the cases concerned allegations of rape and two related to deaths resulting from cross-fire between the security forces and militants. Following court-martial proceedings, punishments included dismissal from service and sentences ranging from five to eight years. Further, compensation was paid to those who had suffered or to their next of kin. 3.12 The army also informed the Commission of the investigations that it had itself undertaken into complaints of human rights violations by its personnel. In respect of each case, as in past years, it indicated the'date and place of the incident, the name of the accused, the gist of the charges framed, the outcome of the enquiry/trial and the details of punishment awarded. In contrast, the Border Security Force sent a 'nil' report, while no information was received from other para-military forces, an omission which the Commission cannot ignore. These responses, or the lack of them, lead the Commission to conclude that the army functions with manifesdy greater accountability and sensitivity to human rights concerns than do the para-military forces, and that the procedures of the former are, in comparison with those of the latter, swifter, more effective and more transparent. They further confirm the view of the Commission that the definition of 'armed forces' in the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, needs to be amended to bring the para-military forces within the ambit of the general investigation procedure 20