A/HRC/10/8/Add.3 page 14 systematically killed. While the Special Rapporteur notes the controversy about the different conclusions of various public enquiries concerning the question whether the Godhra train burning incident was an accident or a deliberate criminal act, she would like to emphasize that there can be no justification for the large-scale killings and violence after 27 February 2002. In addition, there are credible reports that inaction by the authorities was evident and most of the Special Rapporteur’s interlocutors, including politicians, alleged complicity by the state government. 37. While discussing the events with victims, the Special Rapporteur could see their continuing fear which was exacerbated by the distress that justice continues to evade most victims and survivors. A large number of criminal cases relating to the communal violence in 2002 remain un-investigated or have been closed by the Gujarat police and the plight of those internally displaced from their home continues. In addition, there is increasing ghettoization and isolation of Muslims in certain areas of Gujarat, for example in one part of Ahmedabad which is colloquially called “little Pakistan”. The assertion of the state government that development by itself will heal the wounds does not seem to be realistic. The Special Rapporteur believes that it is crucial to recognise that development without a policy of inclusiveness of all communities will only aggravate resentments. 38. During her visit to Gujarat, the Special Rapporteur was also disturbed that at various meetings with members of civil society, plain-clothed government agents took names of her interlocutors and also made their presence felt afterwards. On several occasions, the Special Rapporteur had to insist that police officers left the room during her non-governmental meetings. The terms of reference for fact-finding missions by Special Rapporteurs (E/CN.4/1998/45, appendix V) guarantee confidential and unsupervised contact of the Special Rapporteur with witnesses and other private persons. Furthermore, she would like to remind the authorities in Gujarat of the Government’s assurance according to these terms of reference “that no persons, official or private individuals who have been in contact with the special rapporteur/representative in relation to the mandate will for this reason suffer threats, harassment or punishment or be subjected to judicial proceedings”. (d) The Communal Violence (Prevention, Control and Rehabilitation of Victims) Bill 2005 39. In December 2005, the Communal Violence (Prevention, Control and Rehabilitation of Victims) Bill was introduced in the Parliament but has not yet been adopted. The Bill provides for (a) prevention and control of communal violence; (b) speedy investigation and trials; and (c) rehabilitation of victims. Furthermore, the state government could declare an area as communally disturbed under certain conditions. The district magistrate or the competent authority appointed by the state government could take measures such as regulating assembly, directing persons to deposit their arms or searching premises to control communal violence. 40. However, various civil society organizations have criticized the Bill for its failure to dismantle impunity, state collusion or redress gender based crimes. They have also voiced their concern that the sweeping powers given by the Bill to state governments could be misused to intimidate members of the minority community. Furthermore, the National Commission for