E/CN.4/1989/44 paqe 13 "(4) (One name provided), Tibetan, killed in chaos when a fraqment of a prefabricated cement buildinq component hit his head; "(5) (One name provided), Tibetan, killed durinq the riot when a piece of stone hit his head; "(6) (One name provided), Tibetan, died from fallinq from the roof of a buildinq in chaos. "On 5 March 1988, one policeman, (name provided), was killed by a qroup of rioters who attacked him with stones, sticks and steel rods and pushed him off the roof of a buildinq, resultinq in his death." United States of America 38. In a communication of 3 October 1988 addressed to the Government concerned, the followinq information was transmitted by the Special Rapporteur: "It has been reported that the decision rendered in April 1988 by the Supreme Court in the Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association case (in which Indians argued that the buildinq of a loqqinq road close to a traditional American Indian sacred place would virtually destroy the Indians' ability to practise their religion), has resulted in restrictinq the practice and enjoyment of indiqenous reliqions by invalidatinq the 1978 American Indian Reliqious Freedom Act. In its ruling, the Supreme Court reportedly decided that this Act did not create any judicially enforceable individual rights." 39. On 1 December 1988, the Permanent Mission of thhe United States of America communicated the reply of the United States authorities to the Special Rapporteur's letter of 3 October 1988. The reply stated, in particular: "The Lyng decision of the United States Supreme Court neither invalidates the American Indian Reliqious Freedom Act (AIRFA) nor results in a qeneral restriction of the practice of indigenous religions. In fact, the court specifically stated that the United States Government has, in the factual situation posed by the Lyng case, acted in compliance with the requirements of the AIRFA. Though the Court did not hold that the AIRFA, as such, was a statement of general federal policy and did not create a right to sue the Government, that holding does not change the fact that a citizen's right to religious freedom can be enforced by a suit brought under the first amendment to the United States Constitution. "The question decided in Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association was whether the United States Government may build a six-mile paved road segment on its own land. The new road segment would connect two road segments previously built, which would link the California towns of Gasquet and Orleans. "Indians living on the Hoopa Valley reservation and various other qroups objected to the completion of a six-mile road-buildinq project. The Indians arqued that the land, located in a national forest, was used by the Indians for reliqious purposes. Respecting Indian reliqious concerns, the planners of the project had selected a route which avoided