10 i EXPERIENCE OF THE WORKING OF THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS ACT. 1993 procedures germane to the 'better protection' of human rights. In other words, that it was necessary to. hold accountable and to bring to justice those who had been responsible for the violation of such rights, to redress the grievances of those who had been wronged, to provide them—when needed — with immediate interim relief, and to do away with the shroud of secrecy and lack of information behind which violators of human rights had historically, and in all societies, sought refuge. Fifth, the Statement saw the need for the devising of methods that would be more 'efficient and effective' in furthering the 'better protection' of human rights. It recognised that existing laws, procedures, and the system of administration of justice needed to be reviewed. The fulfilment of these high purposes thus became the legitimate concern of the Commission under the provisions of the Act. 2.5 By the sixth year of its functioning, it became increasingly clear to the Commission that certain provisions of the Act required to be re-examined as they were, in fact, tending to militate against the purposes of the Act itself and lending themselves to being used, on occasion, to thwart the endeavours of the Commission to provide for the 'better protection' of human rights in the country. The Commission therefore requested a former Chief lustice of India to head a high-level Advisory Committee to assess the need for structural changes and amendments to the Act. The advice of that Advisory Committee was given to the Commission in October 1999 and considered by the Commission in February 2000. After a clause by clause discussion of the Act, the Commission formulated its views on the amendments that were required to be made to the Act, keeping in view the major impediments and structural inadequacies experienced by the Commission over a course of seven years in operating the Act. Only then, in March 2000, did the Commission transmit its proposals regarding the amendments required to the Act to the Central Government. 2.6 It is a matter of deepest regret to the Commission that, over two years later, those proposals are still pending consideration before the Central Government, despite the Chairperson having personally drawn attention to this matter, both publicly and privately, at the highest reaches of Government. The formal position thus far taken by the Central Government is contained in its Memorandum of Action Taken of April 2002, which was submitted to Parliament in respect of the Commission's annual report for the year 1999-2000. In that Memorandum, it is stated: 'The suggested amendments are very sensitive and have far reaching consequences. Therefore they have to be examined by the Government NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION