The State Human Right Commission’s investigation (SHRC) wing has, in a report, stated that ‘carelessness and deliberate attempts by investigation officer has led to loss of the evidence to punish the paramilitary CRPF men responsible the Hawal massacre in 1990.At least 67 people were killed and hundreds injured when the paramilitary troops opened fire on a peaceful procession carrying theb body of Mirwaiz Kashmir Moulana Mohammad Farooq in 1990. While the language, tone and tenor of the SHRC report is strong or even scathing but, in the final analysis, it does not amount to much. Incriminating evidence has apparently been destroyed and even if the SHRC initiates a new probe, there will naturally, after a gap of 27 years be lapses and inconsistencies in the surviving witnesses remarks and /or clues. Moreover, the perpetrators of the uncalled for and gratuitous massacre would, in all likelihood have moved on with their lives. These factors would perhaps among other things render the case, what in legal parlance, is called infructous. That is, irrelevant or ineffective. Rendering cases of this issue irrelevant and banking upon time by delay and obstructionism seems to be a theme by those who want to obscure crimes of this nature and prevent legal and/or criminal proceedings against perpetrators in Kashmir. The idea and concept of justice, which can be said to accord closure to the kith and kin of victims, is given short shrift in the process. But this is not the end of the matter. By not according closure for victims or, in case of killings in Kashmir, their kith and kin–being an indelible aspect of justice—means and implies adding another layer to the conflict in and over Kashmir. This, in turn means, the deepening of estrangement in Kashmir rendering resolution of the conflict even more difficult. But then, especially against the backdrop of history and contemporary times, it appears that no one is interested in resolution of the conflict in and over Kashmir. In the minds of powers that be, the idea is of pacification of people. But pacification can never be a substitute for conflict resolution. History demonstrated eloquently that in conditions of conflict and conflict situations, if closure is not accorded to a given peoples, there is every possibility of recrudescence or relapse of conflict. This is what those who indulge in obscurantism appear to ignore. The best antidote to conflict relapse is resolution of the conflict in and over Kashmir. In a way, despite the fact that the victims have lost what is ultimate in this world, that is, their lives, and no amount of compensation can really be enough, what might accord closure to the kith and kin of many killings that have taken place in Kashmir is resolution of the conflict.