12 i EXPERtENCE OF THE WORKING OF THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS ACT, 1993 unsatisfactory, and the existing definition of 'armed forces' — which includes not only the 'naval, military and air forces' but also 'any other armed forces of the Union' — excessively wide. 2.9 Despite the existing inadequacies of the Act in this respect, however, the Commission has made clear to the Central Government that the power of the Commission to make 'recommendations' under section 19 must mean, as a corollary, that it has the power to do all that is necessary for the proper discharge of its responsibility. The Commission has thus taken the view that the 'report' that it seeks fi-om the Central Government under section 19(1) of the Act must satisfy this requirement and contain all the material that is necessary to enable the Commission to decide objectively whether to accept the Government's report, and not proceed further in respect of the allegations contained in a complaint, or to make 'recommendations' in respect of that complaint. In the view of the Commission, the 'report' must therefore contain a statement of all of the facts and all of the occurrences relating to the alleged violation of human rights contained in a complaint; it must not merely be confined to the findings or conclusions reached by the Central Government on the basis of facts that are not disclosed to the Commission. The Commission has also made clear that only such a construction of section 19 would promote the 'better protection' of human rights, which is the principal object of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 and that such a construction must be preferred, since it is in consonance with a settled canon in the interpretation of statutes. 2.10 In actual practice, the Commission has therefore taken the position that in the case of unnatural death caused by the use of force, or 'disappearance' from custody, as soon as it is proved or admitted that the victim was in the custody, for instance, of the armed forces, the burden would be on the latter to prove how the detainee was dealt with, and unless it can satisfactorily be shown that the custodian is not responsible for the harm done in custody, or 'disappearance' from custody, the initial presumption of accountability will remain unrebutted. The relevant extracts of the opinion of the Commission, spelling out its construction of section 19 of the Act, may be seen on pages 249 to 263 of this report; it deals with the complaint of Smt. Mina Khatoon alleging the 'disappearance' of her husband, Mohammed Tayab Ali, who was last seen in the custody of the armed forces. 2.11 This is not the place to repeat in detail the text of each of the amendments that the Commission had proposed over two years ago to the Act. Those recommendations are annexed in full to the annual report of 1999-2000 and, for ease of reference, they NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION