Though there is no need for retention of the AFSPA, the Review Committee appears to have already decided to retain the AFSPA with some amendments. It has called for representation on whether it should recommend to the government of India to ?i) amend the provisions of the Act to bring them in consonance with the obligations of the Government towards protection of Human Rights; or (ii) replace the Act by a more humane legislation.? Both the proposals have the same end ? the retention of the Act.

In order to uphold the supremacy of the judiciary and primacy of the rule of law, the Review Committee must ensure that the judgments of the Supreme Court of India and opinions of international bodies including the United Nations Human Rights Committee on the AFSPA are incorporated...Leaving it to the armed forces to respect ?Do?s and Don?ts?...as na?vely espoused by the Supreme Court of India in its controversial judgment on the constitutional validity of the AFSPA and to the courts to decide ?case by case basis? have proved to be inadequate, ineffective and counter productive because of continued violations of human rights.... the Asian Centre for Human Rights make the following recommendations for consideration...

The State government alone be empowered to declare certain areas or the entire State as ?disturbed? subject to the approval by two-third majority in the State Legislative Assembly:

The declaration of certain areas as ?disturbed? must be exceptional and temporary and not be extended beyond two times, six months at a time.

A clear definition of ?disturbed areas? similar to the one in the Disturbed Areas (Special Courts) Act, 1976 be provided....

Non-commissioned officers shall be prohibited from ordering the use of fire-arms; Commissioned officers shall not order the use of firearms against persons except in self-defence or defence of others against the imminent threat of death or serious injury, to prevent the perpetration of a particularly serious crime involving grave threat to life, to arrest a person presenting such a danger and resisting their authority, or to prevent his or her escape, and only when less extreme means are insufficient to achieve these objectives. In any event, intentional lethal use of firearms may only be made when strictly unavoidable...

In the circumstances provided above, commissioned officers shall identify themselves as such and give a clear warning of their intent to use firearms, with sufficient time for the warning to be observed, unless to do so would unduly place the law enforcement officials at risk or would create a risk of death or serious harm to other persons, or would be clearly inappropriate or pointless in the circumstances of the incident.

Rules and regulations on the use of firearms by commissioned officers should include guidelines that:

(a) Specify the circumstances under which law enforcement personnel are authorized to carry firearms and prescribe the types of firearms and ammunition permitted; (b) Ensure that firearms are used only in appropriate circumstances and in a manner likely to decrease the risk of unnecessary harm; (c) Prohibit the use of those firearms and ammunition that cause unwarranted injury or present an unwarranted risk...