Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
10STATE7494
2010-01-26 00:23:00
UNCLASSIFIED
Secretary of State
Cable title:  

RESPONSE TO THE WORKING GROUP ON COMMUNICATION

Tags:  PHUM UNCHR 
pdf how-to read a cable
VZCZCXYZ0007
PP RUEHWEB

DE RUEHC #7494 0260030
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 260023Z JAN 10
FM SECSTATE WASHDC
TO RUEHGV/USMISSION GENEVA PRIORITY 0000
INFO RUCNDT/USMISSION USUN NEW YORK PRIORITY 0000
UNCLAS STATE 007494 

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: PHUM UNCHR
SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO THE WORKING GROUP ON COMMUNICATION
REGARDING SHAKO SENEGAL MUHAMMAD - GENEVA LOG 77-2009

UNCLAS STATE 007494

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: PHUM UNCHR
SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO THE WORKING GROUP ON COMMUNICATION
REGARDING SHAKO SENEGAL MUHAMMAD - GENEVA LOG 77-2009


1. Mission is requested to convey to the Working Group on
Communications the text of the letter
in paragraph 3. This is in response to their communication
G/SO 215/1 USA 120. This is item number 77 on the 2009 Geneva
Correspondence Log.


2. In their letter dated October 7, 2009, the Working Group
on Communications forwarded a complaint from Mr. Shako
Senegal Muhammad, currently incarcerated at the California
State Prison (CSP) Solano. Mr. Muhammad alleges that the
California State Prison violates his human rights by placing
him in a cell with inmates who allegedly consume pork and who
allegedly engage in acts of sodomy. After a thorough legal
review of the complaint, the United States Government
determined that the communication does not meet the Human
Rights Council admissibility requirements and should
therefore be dismissed by the Working Group.


3. Begin text of letter.

The Government of the United States avails itself of the
opportunity to respond to the request of the Working Group on
Communications from October 7, 2009 with respect to
communication G/SO 215/1 USA 120. For the reasons set forth
below, the communication does not meet the Human Rights
Council admissibility requirements. Accordingly, the United
States respectfully requests that the Working Group dismiss
the communication.


I. Summary of the allegations contained in the communication.

In a one-page communication to the United Nations, Shako
Senegal Muhammad alleges that California State Prison (CSP)
Solano violates his human rights by placing him in a cell
with inmates who allegedly consume pork and who allegedly
engage in acts of sodomy.

II. Admissibility under the Human Rights Council complaint
procedure.

A communication is admissible under the Human Rights Council
Complaint Procedure provided it meets the criteria set forth
in Section IV.B of HRC resolution 5/1. A communication is
only admissible if it &gives a factual description of the
alleged violations, including the rights which are alleged to
be violated.8 (HRC resolution 5/1, para 87(b)). It must
be &reliably attested8 and &accompanied by clear
evidence.8 (HRC resolution 5/1, para 87(d)). Also, the
Petitioners must first exhaust all domestic remedies (HRC
resolution 5/1, para 87(g)).


A. The communication lacks a description of the rights,
alleged to be violated.

Mr. Muhammad,s communications argues generally that

observing what his cellmates eat and do violates his human
rights. He mentions the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights generally, &(t)he Universal Declaration of Human
Rights is profoundly disregarded when Muslims are
concerned.8 However, he does not allege that any of his
rights under the Universal Declaration were violated and does
not cite to any specific right. Instead he argues that his
rights &(a)ccording to the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights
in Islam8 were violated, without specifying a specific
article or right or articulating the status of the particular
provisions at issue in this non-universally accepted
document.
As the Petitioner does not give a &factual description of
the alleged violations, including the rights which are
alleged to be violated,8 the communication is inadmissible.


B. The communication lacks reliable attestation and clear
evidence.

Mr. Muhammad does not provide any support for his
allegations. He does not provide a witness or documentation
supporting his account. As the Petitioner did not present a
&reliably attested8 communication or &clear evidence,8
the communication is inadmissible.


C. The petitioners failed to exhaust all domestic remedies
or explain why such remedies would be ineffective or
unreasonably prolonged.

Under HRC resolution 5/1, para 87(g),a communication is
admissible only if &domestic remedies have been exhausted,
unless it appears that such remedies would be ineffective or
unreasonably prolonged.8 Here, the Petitioner failed to
exhaust his remedies or explain how attempting to do so would
be ineffective or unreasonably prolonged. Accordingly, the
Petitioner failed to meet the requirements of para 87(g) and
the communication is inadmissible.

The doctrine of exhaustion of local remedies ensures that the
State where a human rights violation has allegedly occurred
has the opportunity to provide redress within the framework
of its domestic legal system. The U.S. legal system provides
a comprehensive system of remedies that serve to prevent
human rights abuses and provide relief to their victims. The
available remedies can result in criminal punishment against
the individuals responsible for the violations, injunctive
relief aimed at improving an entire institution or system,
and/or monetary damages or reparations to the victims. Not
only do states have administrative complaint mechanisms to
hear and adjudicate inmates, grievances, but courts have
jurisdiction over and frequently hear allegations of inmate
mistreatment.

Mr. Muhammad does not state that he has sought a domestic
remedy or explain why such remedy would be unavailable.
Because Petitioner failed to meet the exhaustion requirement,
his communication is inadmissible.

III. Conclusion

In conclusion, the Working Group should find the
communications in G/SO 215/1 USA 120 to be inadmissible.
First, Petitioner did not give &a factual description of the
alleged violations, including the rights which are alleged to
be violated.8 Second, he did not present a &reliably
attested8 communication, nor present any &clear evidence.8
Rather, the communication states two grievances, with no
support or substantiation. Finally, the Petitioners failed
to exhaust all domestic remedies, in the California state
administrative process and in state and/or federal courts.
For each of these reasons, we respectfully request that the
Working Group dismiss these communications.


4. End text. Appreciate Mission's assistance.
CLINTON