E/CN.4/2000/9/Add.5 page 3 Introduction 1. The present document contains all government replies received by the Special Rapporteur between 15 December 1999 and 15 February 2000. It is being issued on an exceptional basis to remedy the fact that, owing to the late dispatch of several regular communications, mainly in English, Governments did not have sufficient time to respond to allegations. The Governments concerned were informed of the intention to issue the present addendum by letter dated 24 January 2000, in which they were requested to send outstanding replies by 15 February 2000 in one of the three working languages of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. The purpose of this exceptional request was to ensure that they could be circulated during the Commission session in an informal document, the present addendum in the six official languages of the United Nations only being issued after the session, because of the lateness of submission. Replies to communications sent earlier by the Special Rapporteur that were received after the completion of the main report have also been included in this addendum. Australia 2. The Government reported that the case of the Libyan asylum-seeker and his family (see E/CN.4/2000/9, para. 31) was currently under consideration by the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and that it would inform the Special Rapporteur of the outcome of the process. Azerbaijan 3. By letter dated 5 January 2000, the Government responded positively to the request of the Special Rapporteur to undertake a fact-finding mission to the country. Chile 4. By letter dated 10 January 2000, the Government responded to one of the cases transmitted by the Special Rapporteur on 8 October 1999 (see E/CN.4/2000/9, para. 182). 5. The Government stated that in February 1999 the inmates of the Colina I high security prison had been transferred elsewhere temporarily so that the damage they had done to the prison could be repaired; in the course of the preparatory arrangements and actual transfer process members of the Gendarmería, owing to the resistance of the inmates, used deterrents such as handcuffs and tear gas, injuring some of them. Marcelo Gaete Mancilla’s head injury was the result of his detention by members of the Carabineros de Chile. As for Guillermo Ossandón Cañas, it is stated that, like the other inmates, his injuries were the result of his resistance. The relatives of the inmates lodged a complaint with the sixth civil court of major jurisdiction of Santiago against the National Director of the Gendarmería de Chile and the Chief of Security; proceedings were suspended for want of evidence. They then initiated amparo and protection proceedings before the Santiago Court of Appeal, but their appeal was rejected. An in-house administrative investigation concluded that the staff had acted in accordance with established procedures.