A/HRC/22/45 benefited from her legal rights during the investigation stage; and she did not lodge a complaint against any law enforcement officer. 487. In the second communication, dated 5 March 2012, the Government provided information on 10 outstanding cases. The information provided was considered insufficient to lead to the clarification of the 10 cases, although the six-month rule had previously been applied to three of the cases. 488. In the third communication, dated 6 July 2012, the Government provided information on 18 outstanding cases. The information provided was not considered sufficient to clarify the cases. 489. In the fourth communication, dated 22 October 2012, the Government responded to the prompt intervention letter of 9 August 2012. The Government reported, inter alia, that all defence lawyers were able to attend the hearing but some did not attend on their own initiatives; according safety precautions, audio and video recorders (including cell phones) could not be admitted to the hearing room and the accused could not defend themselves in their native languages; the hearings were held open to the public, although some hearings were held in closed sessions in order to maintain discipline and order. The Government reported that there was no factual information or tangible evidence supporting the allegation that Mr. Bektas‘ detention on remand was because of his work on disappearances, and that Mr. Bektas was being tried on the charge of being a member of an armed terrorist organization. Total cases transmitted, clarified and outstanding 490. Since its establishment, the Working Group has transmitted 182 cases to the Government; of those, 49 cases have been clarified on the basis of information provided by the source, 72 cases have been clarified on the basis of information provided by the Government, one case was discontinued, and 60 remain outstanding. Observations 491. In relation to the communication transmitted under the prompt intervention procedure on 9 August 2012, the Working Group would like to recall the Declaration, which affirms that States must take steps to ensure that persons involved in investigations of cases of disappearance, including the complainant, counsel, witnesses and those conducting the investigation, are protected against ill-treatment, intimidation or reprisal. The Working Group would also like to recall that, in its resolution 21/4, the Human Rights Council urged Governments to take steps to provide adequate protection to witnesses of enforced or involuntary disappearances, human rights defenders acting against enforced disappearances and the lawyers and families of disappeared persons against any intimidation, persecution, reprisals or ill-treatment to which they might be subjected, paying special attention to women as relatives of disappeared persons in the context of their struggle to resolve the disappearance of members of their families. 117