PREFACE ways, has lent itself to the subversion of the very Objects and Reasons leading to the adoption of the Act. The Commission, accordingly, has made a series of proposals for amending the Act, but action on those proposals is still awaited. In the meantime, since the Commission must fulfil its responsibihties to the best of its capacity, it has construed the provisions of its Statute in ways most compatible with its Objects and Reasons. Recently, for instance, the Commission made clear its construction of Section 19 of the Act, which deals with the procedure to be followed with respect to the armed forces in relation to complaints of human rights violations which may be brought against them. On all of these matters, the report that follows provides details of the views of the Commission on the actions that it has taken in the course of the year 2001-2002. As in the past, the present report deals, in particular, with a range of issues relating to civil liberties: the review of laws and the implementation of treaties; the right to health; the rights of women and children, including such serious issues as trafficking; the rights of vulnerable sections of society, particularly Dalits and Adivasis; those displaced by mega projects, and those entrapped in child labour or bonded labour; the rights of those with disabilities; the efforts being made to widen an awareness of human rights and the role of non-governmental organisations and others in furthering this process. The report also contains a description of some of the principal cases decided recently by the Commission, which gives an idea of the range of complaints received by the Commission and the manner in which it has attended to them. The vision of a Commission must, however, always be greater than a mere aggregate of its responses to individual cases and issues. For this Commission, the defence of human rights has been the defence of democracy itself, a democracy that is inclusive in character and caring in respect of its most vulnerable citizens. By its very nature, a National Institution for the promotion and protection of human rights must constantly be vigilant and outspoken in the defence of such rights. This is a responsibility that requires it, as a duty, to draw attention to the acts of the State and its agents that result in the violation of human rights — whether through acts of commission, omission, abetment or negligence. It requires the opeimess and freedom of a democratic polity, however, to ensure that such criticism, which is essential to the well-being of society, is received with respect, even if not always with agreement, and that the dialogue for the better protection of human rights is sustained as an objective of all elements of the State and civil society. As the report for the year 2001-2002 indicates, the National Human Rights Commission has frequently had to take positions at variance with those of the Central and State Governments. It is a great NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION