A/HRC/19/58 alleged threats received by Ms. Angkhana Neelaphaijit, President of the Justice and Peace Commission and wife of Mr. Somchai Neelaphaijit, a human rights lawyer who disappeared in 2004. According to the source, the threats coincide with the on-going legal procedures concerning the case of Mr. Neelaphaijit. 628. On 5 July 2011, the Government replied to the prompt intervention letter. It reported that it had always provided Ms. Neelaphaijit with protection in response to her safety concerns. It further reported that the concerns related to her safety, which were raised earlier by relevant special procedures mechanisms, were promptly and duly investigated, as previously informed. The Government stated that, although the threats may coincide with on-going legal proceedings involving Ms. Neelaphaijit’s husband and with her role as a human rights defender, it would be presumptuous to draw any conclusion at this stage, especially before the authorities concerned have completed all relevant investigations. Information from the Government 629. The Government transmitted three communications to the Working Group. 630. In the first communication, dated 10 February 2011, the Government provided information on six outstanding cases and requested clarifications from the Working Group with regard to the 2010 Annual Report. Concerning one outstanding case, the Government brought to the Working Group’s attention that, notwithstanding that in its 2009 Annual Report (A/HRC/13/31, par. 552) it had been indicated that the six-month rule had been applied to this case, the said case had not yet been clarified. The Working Group replied that, due to a technical error, the letter informing the source about the implementation of the six-month rule had not been sent. Therefore the six-month rule started to apply after the Working Group’s ninety-third session. In addition, based on the information provided, the Working Group decided to apply the six-month rule to two other cases. Regarding the remaining three cases, the information provided was considered insufficient to lead to their clarification. 631. In the second communication, dated 5 July 2011, the Government replied to the prompt intervention letter sent on 16 February 2011. 632. In the third communication, dated 17 October 2011, the Government requested clarifications concerning the suspension of the six-month rule with regard to a case. In addition, it provided information to the Working Group concerning the remedies provided to 28 persons who appear on the records of the Working Group, and noted that the Government has taken all cases of alleged disappearances very seriously, especially in addressing the plights of the families whose members had allegedly disappeared, thereby providing them with appropriate remedies. Furthermore, the Government requested the assistance of the Working Group in obtaining more specific information on the outstanding cases. It also asked the Working Group whether the six-month rule could be applied to seven cases for which the Thai Court had ruled to be disappearances. Finally, it replied to the request for a visit, as well as informed the Working Group that the Cabinet of the Royal Thai Government had approved the signing the Convention and its ratification is being finalized. Information from sources 633. Sources provided information on five outstanding cases. Regarding one case, the source confirmed the information provided by the Government and, consequently, the case was clarified. In addition, the sources contested the information provided by the Government with regard to two cases to which the six-month rule had been applied. Consequently, the Working Group decided, at its ninety-fourth session, to suspend the application of the six-month rule to these two cases. 122