A/HRC/16/48 131. The fourth communication, dated 14 June 2010, was not translated in time for inclusion in the present report. 132. In the fifth communication, dated 21 July 2010, the Government transmitted information on two outstanding cases. For one case, the information was considered insufficient to clarify it. Regarding the second case, to which the six-month rule had been applied at the ninety-first session, the Government transmitted additional information. 133. In the sixth communication, dated 31 August 2010, the Government transmitted a copy of Law No. 1408 whereby homage to the victims of the crime of enforced disappearances is paid and measures for their location and identification are established. Information from sources 134. Sources provided information on 15 outstanding cases. Clarification 135. Further to the information provided by the source, the Working Group decided to clarify one case. 136. Following the expiration of the period prescribed by the six-month rule, the Working Group decided to clarify six cases. Prompt intervention 137. On 7 January 2010, the Working Group sent a prompt intervention letter, jointly with another special procedures mechanism, to the Government of Colombia regarding the harassment of a human rights defender working on cases of enforced disappearances. General allegations Reply from the Government 138. On 13 July 2009, the Government replied to a general allegation, sent by the Working Group on 15 May 2009, concerning the approval by the First Commission of the Colombian Chamber of Representatives of bill number 044/08, known as the “Victims Law”, which established measures for reparations and protection of victims of the Colombian armed conflict. In its reply, the Government stated that the bill had been shelved by the Congress in July 2008 because of the discrepancies between the texts approved by each of its chambers and the implications of the approved text for the conciliation that took place before the bill was shelved. One of the factors that led to the shelving of the bill was that the combined text produced by the two chambers, which was to be considered by the Chamber of Representatives, was not financially viable. 139. The Government stressed that the reparations included in the law would have been solely administrative and in no way would have conflicted with, or restricted a victim’s right to take the perpetrator of the acts to court to obtain redress. 140. The Government informed the Working Group that the administrative reparation system that would have been established through the bill would have complemented the existing reparation provided for by the State for human rights violations, committed either by individuals or by the State officials, in order to achieve a full reparation programme. 141. The Government also stressed that any legislation adopted in favour of the victims must contain provisions that can be implemented, recognizing that victims cannot be granted relief by a bill that cannot be put into effect and that it was not logical or respectful 37