A/HRC/13/31 Standard procedures 257. The Working Group transmitted seven newly-reported cases to the Government. The cases concerned Hamanyun Azad, arrested in Srinager, Jammu and Kashmir, in 1993, Sajad Ahmed Bazaz, arrested at his home in Srinager, Jammu and Kashmir, in 1992, Shabeer Hussain Bhat, arrested in Srinager, Jammu and Kashmir, in 1994, Khusheed Amed Butt, arrested in Baramullah district, Jammu and Kashmir, in 1990, Javid Ahmad Matto, arrested in Pulwama, Jammu and Kashmir, in 1993 when he was 13 years old, Abdul Rashid Mir, arrested in Kupwara District in 1990, and Manzoor Ahmed Wani last seen in Tragpora Village Army Camp, in 2005. Information from the Government 258. The Working Group received three communications from the Government on 30 June, 2 July and 20 August 2009, concerning cases, none of which led to clarification. Information from sources 259. The Working Group received new information from sources on three cases, which did not lead to clarification. General allegations Summary of the allegations 260. The Working Group received information from sources concerning obstacles encountered in the implementation of the Declaration in the country. This information was transmitted to the Government after its eighty-sixth and eighty-eighth sessions through the following general allegations. 261. Regarding the first general allegation, it was reported that the current legal provisions in India hamper the right to a prompt and effective remedy, leading to impunity for cases of enforced disappearances. Allegedly, it frequently requires the order of a Superior Court for police to register complaints against the armed forces when apprehending civilians and not revealing their whereabouts. In addition, investigations are reportedly obstructed by the unwillingness of the armed forces to cooperate with the police, and the reluctance of the police to carry out proper investigations of crimes purportedly involving military personnel. 262. There is also concern that the current legislation, including the Criminal Procedure Code, the Jammu and Kashmir Disturbed Areas Act, the Armed Forces Special Powers Act and the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, require special sanction from executive authorities to proceed with investigations into alleged crimes committed by State officials. According to the reports received, the Jammu and Kashmir State Government made almost 300 requests to the central Government to prosecute but none were granted. Allegedly, there is no single case where a sanction to prosecute has been given. 263. There were also reports that the ability of victims to have recourse to the judicial process is severely hampered by problems of access, expense, distance, delay and language. Several judges reportedly noted that delays are caused because State officials do not present themselves or file replies. In many cases, State authorities reportedly issue blanket denials or contradictory statements in response to petitions in judicial inquiries. In addition, it is alleged that police complaints are only registered after the Superior Court issues a decision. The case is then often transferred to subordinate courts, which are allegedly severely overburdened and unable to compel State respondents to obey orders. GE.09-17704 59