Statement: “Send all reports—post-mortem, videography, and magisterial inquiry—within two months of incidents such as custodial deaths or custodial rapes.” — Instruction from the NHRC Chairperson to state governments. Conclusions: I. The Chairperson believes in speedy justice. II. Delays in such cases may lead to tampering with evidence.

Introduction / Context:
The NHRC Chairperson sets a strict two-month deadline for critical reports in custodial death/rape cases. The intent signals values (timeliness) and recognizes procedural risks (staleness or evidence compromise). We assess whether the two conclusions are entailed by the instruction’s nature and context.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Deadline: all specified reports must reach within two months.
• Case types: custodial deaths and custodial rapes—high-stakes rights violations.
• No explicit prose about evidence tampering, but time-sensitivity is implied.

Concept / Approach:
Conclusion I follows: imposing a short, definite timeline aligns with a belief in speedy processes and, by extension, timely justice. Conclusion II is a reasonable procedural inference: in forensic/legal workflows, delays risk contamination, loss, or manipulation of evidence; the deadline mitigates such risks, so II follows as a rationale consistent with the instruction’s design.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) Time-bound directive → prioritization of speed → I follows.2) Sensitive cases + need for contemporaneous records → deadline combats deterioration/tampering → II follows.

Verification / Alternative check:
If the Chairperson were indifferent to speed or evidence integrity, there would be little reason to impose a strict two-month limit; the instruction itself demonstrates those priorities.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Choosing only one conclusion ignores the dual purpose (timeliness and integrity). “Neither” contradicts the evident logic of the directive.

Common Pitfalls:
Demanding explicit mention of “tampering” when the functional rationale is obvious from the procedural safeguard (tight timelines).

Final Answer:
If both I and II follow.