Hcmrmr, the Magistrate who held the inquiry hsld no one gullty and stated that the cause of death was due to a fall from a moving tempo and no adon was taken against the policemen named In the FIR. According to the magiaterid hquiry, the deceased was taken into custody by Shri U.R. Rathd, SI and his staff of the DlPolice Station h a case no.33/96under aectlons 447,504 506(2)and 323 of IPC on 4 July 1998.While being taken to the police station in a tempo from his village the deceased jumped out from the tempo and sustained head injurlss and eventually died on the same day In the hospital. The Magiatrate, after listing the Injuries sustained, noted that the final cause of death as 'Inttacranial haemorrhage shock dwe to htmd injury'. The Magistrats In his inquiry found the conduct of the officials in the matter and the facts surrounding the death of the prisoner raised reasonable doubt that the death could not have been -used by the alleged attempt to escape by h e prisoner. The Commission, on careful consideration of the evidence on mmd and the findings in the magisterial enquiry, formed the view that the death of the prisoner occurred under suspicious circumstances and that the police personnel on duty did not exercise the due diligence expected of them in the performance of their dutles. The Commission, relying on provisions contained in sections 18(1) and 18(3) of the Protectfon of Human Rights Act, 1993, recommepded that a compensation of Re.1 lakh be paid to the dependants of the deceased. The NHRC is empowered d s 18 (3) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, to recommend to the concerned Govt. or authority the grant of 'immediate interim relief' to the victim or to the members of his family. This provision has been generously operated and the power conferred under it is widely exercised by the Commission in deserving cases. The Commission has In this connection kept itsalf alve to the spirit of various United Nations instruments. Article 9 of the International Convsnant on C i l and Political Rights makes it explicit that everyone has the right to liberty and security of peraon and nobody shall be subjected lo arbitrary erreU or detention. It furihar mandates that anyone who has been the victim of unlawful arrest or detention shall have an enforceable right to compensation. Article I 4 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 1985 makes it an obligation of the State to ensure that in its legal system, the victim of an act of torture obtains redress and has an enforceable rlght to fair and adequate compensation, including the means for as full a rehabilitation aa possible. In the event of the death of the victim as a result of an act of torture, his dependants shall be entitled to compensation. Principle 35 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment (19881, also prescribes for remedy of compensation, in case of any damage incurred M u s e of acts of omission by public officials contrary to the rights contained in the 6ody of Principles.