E/CN.4/1996/35/Add.1 page 61 incorrect to say that he had been forced to stand on the snow for six hours during his interrogation. No case had been registered on behalf of Bashir Ahmad Mir. 325. The Special Rapporteur also informed the Government that a source of allegations had commented on the reply the Government had sent to the Special Rapporteur on 23 November 1994 with respect to some general issues regarding the question of torture in the country. With regard to the constitution of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), the source contended that although the NHRC had determinedly pursued a number of complaints, it had generally failed to inform human rights organizations as to the outcomes of the individual complaints they had submitted. Concern was also expressed at the exceedingly limited jurisdiction the NHRC could exercise in Jammu and Kashmir, where the majority of serious human rights allegations involved the army and paramilitary forces, bodies excluded from NHRC jurisdiction. The source welcomed the Government’s proposed amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure in May 1994 (see E/CN.4/1995/34, para. 344), but observed that Parliament had yet to adopt the proposals. With respect to lack of access to lawyers by detainees in Bombay, the source pointed out that language in the Bombay Police Manual that access to lawyers can be refused "when there is reason to believe that the ends of justice might be defeated or might suffer by such access" is excessively broad and seemed to contravene rulings by the Supreme Court on the issue. The source also stressed that, contrary to the representation of the Government, many detainees in practice are not brought before a magistrate within 24 hours of arrest and indeed some are released after several days without having seen a magistrate at all. This practice was said to create conditions which facilitate torture. 326. In its reply of 8 December 1995, the Government stressed that, with respect to the allegation that the above-cited instruction from the Bombay Police Manual might contravene the Constitution, any administrative order in contravention of the Constitution was justiciable and could be challenged in the courts. The Government also repeated its assertion that under law detained persons must be brought before a magistrate within 24 hours of arrest and that police officers not following this requirement would be liable for infringement of law. Remedies, including writs of habeas corpus, were available to any person arbitrarily detained. 327. Clarification and follow-up information was also sought by the Special Rapporteur in the cases of Sherpal, S. Pochamma, Khader Baba, Begum Sara, Gyani Ram, Babu Iqbal, Dilbagh Singh, Wilson, Ram Singh, Bhagwan Dass, Satyavan, Bhura Hartan Medhan, Vidyadharan, and N. Venkatesan (see E/CN.4/1995/34, paras. 325, 328, 329, 337, 350, 351, 352, 354, 355, 357, 360, 362, 365 and 368). With respect to many of these cases, the source expressed concern that inquiries and other proceedings were ongoing for prolonged periods without resolution. In the case of Begum Sara, the source observed that while the Government had replied that "no clue was found regarding the cause of the death of the deceased", the post-mortem had in fact found "marks of violence on (the) neck, breasts, left knee and there was a massive vulval edema and extensive vaginal tear ... Death was due to asphyxia due to ligature put on her neck and a constant power applied." The source was also concerned that no investigation by an impartial and independent body appeared to have been carried out with respect to the death in custody of Bhagwan Dass.