E/CN.4/1996/35/Add.1 page 50 245. With respect to allegations regarding Jammu and Kashmir, section 7 of the Armed Forces (Jammu and Kashmir) Special Powers Act was aimed at protecting members of the security forces from vexatious complaints. Nevertheless, the Government had, without exception, accorded permission to launch a prosecution wherever investigations had established the prima facie culpability of any security forces personnel. Allegations as to the routine nature of torture, including rape, by the BSF, CRPF and the army were false and part of a propaganda campaign by terrorists to divert the attention of the international community from the issue of terrorism. This was not to suggest that no human rights violations had occurred, but any such cases were promptly investigated and stringent action was taken where appropriate. Any allegation of a cognizable offence had to be registered by the State police. Such cases were investigated by the Criminal Investigation Department (CID), which functions independent of interference or influence from the security forces and State police. The security forces, including the army and BSF, maintained their own statutes prescribing severe punishment for acts of indiscipline by their members. They also had their own courts of inquiry to try cases such as torture, deaths in custody and rape. 246. Contrary to the allegations, the Human Rights Cell of Jammu and Kashmir was not headed by a police officer, but rather by the Division Commissioner, Kashmir, who is a member of the civil service. A representative of the CID had also been included, as the CID is the primary agency for investigating complaints. The security forces were represented on the Cell so as to provide for better coordination and effective follow-up action on investigations. The allegation that police had instructions not to file an FIR without the permission of higher authorities was incorrect, as no such orders had ever been issued. Rather, the police were duty bound to register such complaints and were subject to legal and departmental action if they failed to do so. 247. In his letter of 11 April 1995, the Special Rapporteur also transmitted nine cases occurring in Jammu and Kashmir, as well as three other cases occurring in the country. The Government provided replies to some of these cases on 23 August 1995, 2 November 1995, and the above-mentioned letter of 8 December 1995. The allegations, followed by the Government’s replies, are summarized in the following paragraphs. 248. Naseer Ahmad Hajam was reportedly arrested and interrogated by soldiers on 23 November 1994 during operations conducted in the Batamaloo district of Srinagar. He allegedly received electric shocks to his ears, eyelids, finger and wetted genitals and was subjected to the "roller", which resulted in broken bones. He twice lost consciousness during his ordeal. 249. The Government replied that no such person had been arrested on the date in question by the security forces in the Batamaloo district. 250. Dr. Ghulam Mohammad Bhat, a senior hospital doctor, was reportedly interrogated under torture in a makeshift detention centre, following a raid on the village of Mujagund on 25 June 1994 by troops from the Zainkot army camp. He allegedly had water poured down his mouth through a wet cloth placed over his mouth and nose, while two soldiers sat on his legs and another placed his feet on his chest. Electric shocks were then applied to his penis. He was said to have been tortured repeatedly in 20-minute periods.