A/HRC/10/9 page 72 Clarification 355. Following the information received by the source, the Working Group decided to clarify one case. Meetings 356. Representatives of the Government of Sri Lanka met with the Working Group at its eighty-fourth session to discuss developments connected to its outstanding cases and the request for a visit. Prompt intervention 357. On 15 July 2008, the Working Group sent a prompt intervention letter to the Government of Sri Lanka, together with the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression and the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders. It concerned human rights defenders who were questioned by the Colombo Crime Division on the history, objectives and details of their work, after they distributed two leaflets during a public demonstration. Further questioning took place at the Colombo Crime Division Office, and information about the staff members and their families was also recorded. 358. On 12 September 2008, the Working Group sent a second prompt intervention letter, together with the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders (listed as an urgent appeal under the mandate’s records). It concerned the prolonged interrogation of a human rights defender working on enforced disappearances, as well as a reported defamation campaign against him. 359. On 6 October, the Working Group sent a third prompt intervention letter, together with the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers and the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders. It concerned the bombing of a human rights lawyer’s premises. He had reportedly been taking cases of enforced disappearance to court. 360. On 4 September 2008, the Government responded to the first letter. The Government indicated that investigations were launched based on information received concerning the distribution of pamphlets “attempting to excite feelings of disaffection amongst public in contempt of the administration of justice. […] The material contained in the pamphlet was reportedly “provocative in nature, would have aroused feelings of hatred towards security forces and the police […]” and “could have possibly influenced the public to precipitate an inimical situation. […] In the pamphlet in question, certain statements were made against armed forces and the police and their activities in the performance of their duties. […] Therefore, it was necessary to investigate the nature of the publication and to seek legal advice from the Attorney General”. 361. In addition, the Government stated that in the course of the investigations, no arrests or detentions were made and that there were no threats or intimidations on those who were subjected to questioning.