Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
be said to have reached a consensus that the inhumane treatment of a huge number of persons accused of no crime and held in confinement is a violation of the law of nations.”). But see Sarei, 221 F.Supp.2d at 1162 n. 190 (concluding that “plaintiffs have not demonstrated that prohibitions against cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment (other than torture) and gross violations of human rights constitute established norms of customary international law”); Xuncax, 886 F.Supp. at 186 (finding that “it is evident that the prohibition against [cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment] poses more complex problems of definition than are presented by norms forbidding torture, summary execution, disappearance or arbitrary detention”); Forti v. Suarez-Mason, 694 F.Supp. 707, 711-12 (N.D.Cal.1988) . e. War crimes “After the Second World War,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a case is moot when the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome
B. holding claim is not cognizable
C. holding that defendants claim for ineffective assistance of counsel due to a conflict of interest was not cognizable on direct appeal
D. holding claim is cognizable
E. holding that there is no cognizable claim for cruel inhuman and degrading treatment due to the lack of a precise definition
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.