A/HRC/31/57/Add.1 170. In the absence of information to the contrary, the Rapporteur concludes that there is substance in the allegations presented in the initial communications, available via the links above, and thus, that the Government of India, by failing to protect the physical and psychological integrity of women in sterilization camps, violated their right to be free from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment as codified in the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT). (b) JAL 6/11/2015 Case No. IND 13/2015 State Reply: None to date Allegations concerning torture, ill-treatment, and sexual violence against Ms. Huidrom Sharda Devi and Ms. Nengneikim Haokip; and concerning torture, ill-treatment, and sexual violence against, and killing of, Ms. Thangjam Manorama Devi and X, a disabled ten year old girl. 171. The Special Rapporteur expresses serious concern that the Government of the India has not replied to the present communication, thereby failing to cooperate with the mandate issued by the Human Rights Council Resolution 25/13. 172. In the absence of information to the contrary, the Rapporteur concludes that there is substance in the allegations presented in the initial communication, available via the link above, and is therefore of the view that the Government of India, by failing to protect the rights to life of X and Ms. Thangjam Manorama Devi, and the rights to physical integrity and freedom from exploitation and sexual violence of Ms. Huidrom Sharda Devi, Ms. Nengneikim Haokip, and Ms. Thangjam Manorama Devi, and X, has violated their rights to be free from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, as provided for, inter alia, Article 1, Article 2 and Article 16 of the Convention Against Torture (CAT). 173. The Rapporteur calls on the Government of India to undertake a prompt, independent, and effective investigation into the allegations of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment leading to the prosecution and punishment of the perpetrators, provide full redress to the victims and their family members, and undertake effective measures to prevent the recurrence of these acts. The Rapporteur expects to be kept fully informed of the outcome of the investigation and proceedings. (c) JUA 10/12/2014 Case No. IDN 6/2014 State Reply: None to date Allegations concerning the imminent risk of execution of five prisoners in Indonesia. 174. The Special Rapporteur regrets that the Government of Indonesia has not replied to the present communication, thereby failing to cooperate with the mandate issued by the Human Rights Council in its resolution 25/13. In particular the letter expressed grave concerns regarding the use of death penalty that may be carried out against several prisoners who have been convicted on drug-related charges, which does not meet the threshold of “most serious crimes” that would warrant the death penalty under international law. 175. As observed by the Special Rapporteur in his 2012-report to the General Assembly (A/67/279), there is evidence of an evolving standard within international bodies and a robust State practice to frame the debate about the legality of the death penalty within the context of the fundamental concepts of human dignity and the prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. This evolving standard, along with the resulting illegality of the death penalty under such prohibition, is developing into a norm of customary law, if it has not already done so (para. 74). Even if this customary norm is still under way, the Special Rapporteur considers that most conditions under which capital punishment is actually applied renders the punishment tantamount to torture and that under many other, less severe conditions, it still amounts to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment (para. 75). 176. In the absence of information to the contrary, the Rapporteur concludes that there is 33