A Ci^n] Liberties have been made. This results in a well-founded fear in the minds of the victims/ complainants about the impartiality and objectivity in the enquiry and reporting system. With a view to strengthening the credibility of the reporting system, the Commission has therefore made specific recommendations regarding the procedures to be adopted by the State Authorities in responding to notices issued to the concerned District Police/ X' Heads of Administration (Annexure VII). 3.52 In a number of instances, the Commission has also considered it essential to call upon officers of comparatively senior levels in the States/Centre to examine sensitive complaints against governmental authorities. The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, entitles the Commission to draw upon the time and resources of such Central and State Government agencies. It would negate the very purpose of the Commission's request to senior officers for the benefit of their views, if they were to delegate this responsibility to their juniors and then merely forward the reports received from the latter. The Commission has stated that even when a senior officer delegates his function to A r to ajunior and asks an officer oflower rank to examine a matter, the Commission would nevertheless, be entitled to expect that such senior officers would examine the report closely and endorse its veracity before recommending it for acceptance by the Commission. SYSTEMIC REFORMS: PRISONS Deaths In judicial Custody 3.53 The Commission has consistently held that the death of a prisoner in judicial custody calls for a thorough probe and that both a post-mortem and a magisterial enquiry should be conducted in all such cases. It has also recommended that if there are rules inconsistentwith this procedure, they should be modified suitably. Consistent with this view, the Commission had directed the Maharashtra Government to modify its procedures. It had pointed out that the absence of enabling rules by itself was not a ground to exclude the procedures recommended by the Commission. Facilities to Prisoners 3.54 On a complaint from the General Secretary of the Peoples' Union for Civil Liberties, Delhi, the Commission examined the question of the supply of reading material to prisoners. After considering a detailed report on the subject prepared by the National Law School of India University, Bangalore, and an aide-memoir prepared by Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, Senior Advocate, the Commission drafted guidelines, which it recommended for adoption by all State Governments/Union Territories. The latterwere also asked to advise the State prison authorities to modify their existing rules and practices whenever they were at variance with the guidelines. The guidelines were as follows: 31