32 ... ... ... ... .. S I T UAT I O N I N G U JA R AT 3.11 Following assumption of the office of Chairperson of the Commission by Dr. Justice A.S. Anand, the Commission continued its strenuous efforts to ensure that the purposes of justice would be met in Gujarat, both in terms of bringing to book those who had been responsible for the violation of human rights and in terms of providing appropriate levels of protection and compensation to the victims of violence. To this end, repeated consultations were held with the Commission's Special Rapporteur and others in a position to help and advise, and a number of practical proposals and measures were devised to assess and ameliorate the situation. 3.12 These measures and steps are being recounted in the present report, in the paragraphs that follow, even though they were taken after 31 March 2003, i.e. the completion of the year under review. They are being recorded in order to provide, readily, an up-to-date account of the actions of the Commission in respect of a situation that has continued to be of great concern to the Commission. 3.13 On 9 May 2003, the newly appointed Chief Secretary of Gujarat, accompanied by the Resident Commissioner of Gujarat based in New Delhi, called upon the Chairperson and Members of the Commission. In that meeting, the Commission raised the following issues with the Chief Secretary: (i) It was recalled that the Commission had urged, in its Proceedings of 1 April and 31 May 2002, that certain critical cases be entrusted to the CBI. These included the cases relating to the Godhra incident, the Chamanpura (Gulbarga Society) incident, the Naroda Patiya incident, the Best Bakery case in Vadodara, and the Sadarpura Case in Mehsana district. It was stated in the meeting that the CBI may be entrusted with the investigation of those cases where charge-sheets had not yet been filed in the Courts. (ii) It was noted that there was a conflict of opinion regarding relief measures. While the Government claimed that relief had been given to all riot-affected people, the affected people complained that there had been no proper disbursement of relief. The Commission stated that it would therefore be desirable to set-up a Grievance Redressal Authority, to be nominated by the National Human Rights Commission with assistance from the Government, to whom grievance can be made. This measure would instill confidence in the affected people. N AT I O N A L H U M A N R I G H T S C O M M I S S I O N