E/CN.4/2003/24 page 40 2. Response of the Government of Guyana 73. In a letter dated 3 December 2002, the Permanent Representative of Guyana to the United Nations indicated that the letter of the Special Rapporteur was only received on 25 November 2002 and that his Government will be responding as soon as possible. 3. Observation by the Special Rapporteur 74. The Special Rapporteur is looking forward to the response of the Government of Guyana, which will be reflected in his next report to the Commission. F. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland 1. Joint communication of 13 September 2002, sent together with the Special Rapporteur on the question of torture 75. Zahid Mubarek was reportedly beaten to death with a table leg by his cellmate, Robert Stewart, in Feltham Young Offenders Institution and Remand Centre, Middlesex, in March 2000. Robert Stewart was said to have been convicted of murder later in the year. An internal prison service investigation into this murder is believed to have identified a number of management failures and other major problems affecting Feltham. It is also reported that this investigation concluded that the establishment was institutionally racist. The management was reportedly aware of racist abuse against both staff and inmates belonging to ethnic minorities and of the measures which it should take to address the problem, but failed to take action. According to the information received, Zahid Mubarek was indeed placed in the same cell as Robert Stewart, even though prison officers were, or should have been, aware of Robert Stewart’s racial prejudices and violent behaviour. Robert Stewart was on remand charged under the Harassment Act with sending racially motivated malicious communications, including a letter in which he stated that he would consider killing his cellmate in order to get “shipped out” if he did not get bail when he appeared in court on 7 February. On 5 October 2001, the High Court is said to have ruled that the Home Office should initiate a public and independent investigation into the failures which led to the death of Zahid Mubarek. The judge is reported to have stated that, as there would not be an inquest into the death of Zahid Mubarek, the obligation to hold an effective and thorough investigation could only be met by holding a public and independent investigation with the family legally represented, with disclosure to the family’s representatives of relevant documents and with the right to cross-examine the principal witnesses. The Home Office reportedly decided to appeal against the ruling, maintaining that there were sufficient investigations into the killing in connection with the trial of Robert Stewart and through the internal prison service investigation mentioned above. In March 2002, the Court of Appeal ruled that a public inquiry was not necessary. The Court of Appeal judges said that it had already been established that the prison service was at fault, an inquiry into this had been held and the family invited to be involved; that the cause of death had been established by Robert Stewart’s conviction for murder; and that there was no basis for prosecuting any member of the prison service. They also added that there were no “factual unknowns” which would impede the family from bringing a claim in the civil courts for damages. The family of Zahid Mubarek were reportedly planning to appeal to the House of Lords.