civil LIBERTIES the killing of 8 persons and the injming of some^O others on 3 August 2000 in Anantnag, where a crowd was demonstrating against-the killings in Patribal that had occurred on 25 March 2000. In response to notices issued, both the State and Central Governments informed the Commission that a Commission of Inquiry had been appointed headed by Shri Justice S. R. Pandian. The Report of the Pandian Commission was subsequently communicated to the Commission. The report held, inter alia, that certain officers of the police and CRPF had been guilty of an excessive use of force; it also recommended changes in the manner of deployment and use of police and para military forces. The Commission was thereafter, advised of the follow-up action taken by the State Government to launch criminal and disciplinary proceedings against those held responsible, and to award compensation to the next of kin of the deceased and to those who were injured. In the light of the range of actions taken, the Commission concluded that there was no need for it to pursue this matter further. 3.16 In another instance, the Commission received a series of complaints from a leader of the Jamaat-e-Isiami in Jammu and Kashmir alleging that 18 of his party activists had been killed in BaramuUa district in 1998. Investigations had made scant progress and the Commission was requested to assist. The Commission issued notices to the State Government and, dissatisfied with reports that it received, summoned the Director-General of Police to its Headquarters. The intervention of the Commission resulted in the re-opening of investigations in respect of all of the cases that had been closed. In 7 cases, charge-sheets were subsequently filed and a full accoimting provided in respect of the other cases. It was leamt that certain of the killings had resulted from internecine fighting among rival political groups. 3.17 These cases have been recounted inbrief as they are indicative of the complexity of the situation in Jammu and Kashmir and the varied procedures that were followed to inquire into and redress allegations ofhuman rights violations. In certain instances, as required by Section 36(2) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, the Commission held back when Commissions of Inquiry were especially appointed and awaited the results of those inquiries before deciding whether to proceed or not. In other instances, the Commission urged stronger, more diligent investigations. In each instance, the Commission was advised of the outcome of the inquiry or investigation and, thereafter, decided upon the course of action it should most appropriately take. 3.18 The Commission regrets, however, that it has not always been able to count on the transparency of the investigations undertaken. The Patribal incident referred to above, joins the Jalil Andrabi case as an instance in which opacity obscured the ANNUAL REPORT 2000-2001 15