E/CN.4/2000/16 page 30 soap on it to make a slippery surface. They also disconnected electric wiring and placed it in the water in order to electrocute prison staff entering the unit. They also set fire to various parts of the building and fired a missile they had put together with tubing at the warders attempting to enter the unit. The prison authorities then concluded that the unit could no longer be kept secure and decided to act immediately to prevent further incidents. 128. The prison administration invited inmates who did not wish to take part in the disturbances to leave the unit, but without result. As the inmates had broken the lights, the prison staff could not see where they were or whether they were armed. They therefore threw tear-gas grenades into the unit before entering. The inmates were then restrained in straitjackets and taken to the clothing warehouse area in the basement of the prison, where they were assembled pending a decision on where to house them subsequently. 129. The disturbance spread to another dormitory unit, and the prison staff proceeded in the same manner as during the first incident. Some 150 inmates were removed from various units and taken to the clothing warehouse. Some of them went quietly, but many of them resisted violently, and several warders were savagely assaulted. Body searches revealed that some of them were carrying home-made knives; the staff also found many weapons in the dormitory. Several inmates were able to break free from their plastic straitjackets and had to be restrained again. The rioters were left under partial restraint in this way until a sufficiently secure unit could be found to house them in. The prison staff spent the rest of 25 October employed in that task, removing inmates who had previously been housed in the selected unit and moving the inmates grouped in the clothing warehouse to the unit thus cleared. 130. The prison officials state that health service staff were on the premises throughout the morning of 25 October to provide medical care for both inmates and prison staff. Inmates were screened for injuries and were taken to the health service unit where necessary. They could also ask for pastoral care and support, since religious services staff were also present. Inmates whose clothing had become wet or contaminated with tear-gas were provided with additional clothing, and those who wished to go to the toilets were taken there. The state of health of all inmates who had been exposed to tear-gas was then checked daily for 14 consecutive days in accordance with federal penitentiary regulations. Admissibility of allegations of racism and discrimination 131. The Branch et al. law suit (13 complainants, including Mr. Patrick) is still in the pre-trial discovery phase. The prison administration has not yet established all the facts relating to allegations of racism and racial discrimination. The communication referred to by the Special Rapporteur was sent to him at the instigation of Mr. Patrick. 132. While the riot is at least partly attributable to the fact that many inmates believed that they saw a racist bias in sentencing in drugs cases, the information obtained points to the conclusion that the prison staff was not motivated by considerations of race. In the Branch et al. case, eight of the complainants are African-Americans, one a Hispanic and four Caucasians; this would indicate that the rioters were from diverse ethnic backgrounds. The same is true of the prison staff members named in the case, seven of whom are Caucasian, two African-Americans and two Hispanics. The information collected refutes the allegations of the complainants; there