E/CN.4/1998/38 page 14 60. The Rapporteurs recommended that “provision should be made for effective protection of persons providing testimony in proceedings involving human rights violations”. 61. The Government pointed out that the Programme for the Protection of Prosecution Witnesses operated on a limited basis, as the requirements were rather strict and few people were willing to submit to them. Resources continued to be insufficient for the needs. The Government had made progress in implementing the Special Programme for the protection of officials and activists of political, trade union, social and human rights organizations and witnesses. This programme was run by the Special Human Rights Administrative Unit of the Ministry of the Interior. 62. Non-governmental sources pointed out that the Programme for the Protection of Prosecution Witnesses in cases of human rights violations had not produced particularly good results. On the few occasions it had been used the conditions were very strict, the greatest difficulty being to ensure complete separation of the protected person from his or her family. Moreover, witnesses lacked confidence in the conditions of protection, and understandable that victims of human rights violations were afraid of any State official. The rigidity of the Programme conflicted with the lack of confidence of potential protectees, to the detriment of their safety. The main problem with this type of programme was that it was designed for criminals who turned State's witness, rather than for victims of human rights violations. Victims were exposed to the possibility of being placed on a charge, since the function of the Prosecutor's Office was to investigate and accuse, so it was natural for victims not to feel confident about the body required to protect them. These programmes had very little coverage and their focus was debatable; there was a tendency to act on threats against the safety of individuals, but in the overwhelming majority of cases investigation into the causes of and those responsible for the threats was left aside. 63. With regard to the special programme for the protection of officials and activists of political, trade union and social organizations, non-governmental sources pointed out that the programme had been presented to non-governmental human rights organizations by the Government in March 1997. Since that date the safety conditions for human rights institutions and their members had been seriously deteriorating, with many cases of assassinations, disappearances, court proceedings in which human rights activities were criminalized, threats, exile and forced displacement. These acts contrasted with governmental policy since the middle of this year, as exemplified by Presidential Directive No. 011 of 16 July 1997 and the dialogue begun between human rights organizations and the Government through the Ministry of the Interior, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Defence, principally on the situation of human rights defenders. 64. Non-governmental sources also pointed out that Directive No. 011 recognized the legitimacy of the work of non-governmental human rights organizations, their contribution to democracy and the rule of law, and to preventing further violations, overcoming impunity and ensuring reparations for the victims. It ordered public servants to refrain from making insulting or injurious statements against members of these organizations and to give priority to petitions by human rights defenders. The non-governmental