of human rights by the armed forces, particularly from Jammu & Kashmir and the North-Eastern States. The Commission will act with utmost care and as best as it can under the terms of its Statute to ensure that such complaints receive the fullest attention. At the same time, the Commission cannot but note that, in the past year, and not least because of the restraint they have been exercising, the armed forces have themselves been facing a grim toll in lives lost and personnel injured. 3.13 Thus, according to data provided by Army Headquarters, during the period 1 January 1988 to 30 April 7997,the Army suff.ered 1375 killed, and 2237 injured in the Jammu & Kashmir sector. In the North-Eastern sector, the Army and the Police lost 459 personnel, with 250 injured during the period 1 January 1995 to 30 April j997. 3.14 In response to the Commission's recommendations, the Border Security Force and the Army have both continued to keep the Commission informed, on a regular basis, of their personnel who, since 1990, have been charged with violating human rights. The lists provided to the Commission are periodically up-dated, indicating the details of each incident, the charges framed, the stage of proceedings, the decisions reached and the punishments awarded. As of 31 March 1997; 259 cases had been registered against members of the Border Security Force, including 12 officers. As regards the Army, in 31 cases where investigation has been completed and charges of human fights violations proved, 81 personnel have been punished, including 29 officers. As in the past, the details provided to the Commission are available for verification. 3.15 The Commission is concerned that the procedures to be followed in respect of allegations of human rights violations be not only credible, but be seen to be credible. The provisions of Section 19 of the Protection of Human Rights Act 1993 prescribing the manner in which the Commission is to proceed in respect of allegations, against the armed forces is restrictive compared to those of Section 17 of the Act which relate to other public servants. In consequence, Section 19 has been the subject of criticism ever since the Act was adopted. The Commission, for its.part, and in the light of experience gained over three and half years, is once again examining in detail the provisions of its Statute with a view to proposing amendments. In the meantime, it has had occasion to note and welcome the valuable suggestion made by Army Headquarters, in the course of discussions with-the Commission, that the latter be represented to observe the proceedings being conducted by the Army under the provisions of the Army Act, 1950 when it enquires into allegations of human- rights violations by its personnel. The Commission has under consideration the question of how best, and when, if should do so.