3.16 It is also appropriate to mention at this stage that the Commission remained seized of matters arising from the use of the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958 in certain areas of insurgency. Further comments on the stage of consideration of the Act by the Commission may be seen in paragraphs 4.2 to 4.5 below. 3.17 The Commission has continued to receive complaints alleging "false encounters" involving the the police and the security forces. Given the gravity of such complaints, the Commission has treated them with utmost seriousness. In its preceding Annual Report, the Commission mentioned that it had received a complaint from the Andhra Pradesh Civil Liberties Committee (APCLC) alleging the involvement of the Andhra Pradesh police in a number of such incidents. The Commission constituted a Special Bench to go into this matter in detail. The Bench held public hearings in Hyderabad and recorded evidence. Given the importance of the questions of law and procedure involved, it also notified the Solicitor General of India and the Advocate General of the State of Andhra Pradesh. After hearing arguments at its Headquarters in New Delhi, the Commission pronounced its final orders on 5 November 19E6 and communicated these to the State Government of Andhra Pradesh imrnedialely thereafter, which accepted the recommendations of the Commission in full. As the views and recommendations of the Commission in that case are of far-reaching consequence, they are set out in detail in Section IX paragraph 9.12(i) of this report. They are also the subject of a letter dated 29 March 1997 from the Chairperson of the Commission to all Chief Ministers, in which the latter are requested to issue directions, through the Directors General of Police to all Police Stations, on the procedures they should follow in regard to cases where death has been caused in "encountersn with the police. The Commission intends to monitor this matter most carefully, and it will, if necessary, designate specially selected representatives to assist it in this task. The Commission consideis the practice of "fake encounters" to be unconscionable. It cannot permit the right to private defence, spelt out in Chapter IV of the Indian Penal Code, to be manipulated to justify 'fake encounters", or the procedures of Section 46(3) of Ihe Code of Criminal Procedure to be subverted to.serve such an end. on "Human Rights and 3.18 The successive resolutions of the General ~ s & b l ~ Terrorism" referred to earlier in thisjeport have, as their first operative paragraph, an expression ofAkolidaritywith the victims of terrorism. For those who are determined to uphold human rights, it would be a betrayal of their beliefs and responsibilities to ignore, or be complacent about, the plight of those who have suffered at the hands of terrorists or had their lives jeopardized by the violence of armed militancy. The