United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 ______/ XIA DEREN, PLAINTIFF A, ______/ LIU QI, JANE DOEI, v. v. et al. , et al. et al. Defendants. Plaintiffs, Defendants. Plaintiffs, et al. , , , NORTHERN DISTRICTOFCALIFORNIA UNITED STATESDISTRICTCOURT (Docket No.18) (Docket No.18,19) ENTRY OFDEFAULTJUDGMENT RE: PLAINTIFFS’MOTIONFOR REPORT ANDRECOMMENDATION No. C-02-0695CW(EMC) No. C-02-0672CW(EMC) United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 VI. V. IV. III. II. I. C. B. A. ACT OFSTATEDOCTRINE D. C. B. A. THE FOREIGNSOVEREIGNIMMUNITYACT THE ALIENTORTCLAIMSACTANDTORTUREVICTIMPROTECTION SERVICE OFPROCESS CRITERIA FORDEFAULTJUDGMENT C. B. A. GENERAL BACKGROUND 5. 4. 3. 2. 1. The Whether Defendants’ConductConstitutedActsof State Background ontheActofStateDoctrine FSIA SovereignImmunityNotApplicabletoDefendantsLiuandXia Their AuthorityUnderChineseLaw Whether DefendantsActedWithintheScopeof Foreign Sovereign’sLaw Whether ScopeofAuthorityisMeasuredby Application ofFSIAtoIndividualOfficials Response bytheU.S.StateDepartmentandPRC Plaintiff A, Jane DoeI, Sabbatino Summary Whether theForeignStateWasActinginPublic Interest Continued ExistenceoftheAccusedGovernment Implications forForeignRelations Degree ofInternationalConsensus et al. et al. Analysis v.XiaDeren v.LiuQi ...... TABLE OFCONTENTS ...... International or ...... 53 53 50 40 39 39 34 31 31 30 26 24 21 19 16 13 9 8 5 2 1 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 IX. VIII. VII. ANALYSISOFPLAINTIFF’SHUMANRIGHTSCLAIMS CONCLUSION &RECOMMENDATION COMMANDER RESPONSIBILITY E. D. C. B. A. 3. 2. 1. Arbitrary Detention(ATCA) Cruel, InhumanorDegradingTreatment(ATCA) 3. 2. 1. Legal SufficiencyofthePlaintiffs’ClaimsTorture Standing forPlaintiffB The TortureClaims(TVPA) Conclusion Plaintiff Av.Xia Doe v.Liu Exhaustion ofLocalRemediesandStatutesLimitations c. b. a. Acts RisingtotheLevelofTorture Color ofLaworAuthority Requisite Intent Severe PainorSuffering Custody orPhysicalControl Subjected toTortureWhileUndertheActor’s ...... 92 84 84 83 81 79 73 71 70 65 64 64 64 63 62 61 54 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 internationally. China underthreatofarrest in1998. techniques ofqigong(atraditionalmartialart)withthe teachingsofLiHongzhi,whowasforcedtoleave Court recommendstheremainingclaimsbedismissed. broad systemicconductofthegovernment.Otherclaims havenotbeenestablishedonthemerits.The Victim ProtectionAct.TheCourtfindsthatitwouldnotbeappropriatetoadjudicatetheclaimsrelating to and degradingtreatment,arbitrarydetentioninviolationoftheAlienTortClaimsActTorture Court recommendsentryofjudgmentdeclaringthatcertainPlaintiffsweresubjecttotorture,cruel,inhuman should enterdefaultjudgmentagainstDefendantsfordeclaratoryreliefoncertainclaims.Inparticular,the governmental policies.TheCourtalsofindsthatastothePlaintiffs’specificsubstantiveclaims, foreign relationsandthefactthatsuitsarebroughtagainstsittingofficialschallengecurrent declaratory relief.Thoseconcernsaredrivenprimarilybythepotentialimpactthesesuitsmayhaveon However, justiciabilityconcernsembodiedintheactofstatedoctrinecounselagainstremediesotherthan because theallegedconductcognizableinthissuitwerenotvalidlyauthorizedunderChineselaw. Victim ProtectionActarenotbarredbysovereignimmunityundertheForeignSovereignImmunity claims whichshouldbedismissed. judgment fordeclaratoryreliefenteredastocertainclaimsand the belowreasons,thisCourtrecommendsthatmotionbe motion washeardonOctober30,2002.Extensivepost-hearingbriefsweresubmittedbytheparties.For Defendants –localgovernmentalofficialsofChinaaccusedviolatingtheirhumanrights.Plaintiffs’joint or “PRC”).ThePlaintiffsinthesetwocaseshavemovedforentryofdefaultjudgmentagainst of FalunGong,aspiritualmovementinthePeople’sRepublicChina(hereinafterreferredtoas“China” Alien TortClaimsActandTortureVictimProtectionAct.ThePlaintiffsarepractitionerssupporters Falun Gongisaspiritualpracticethatblendsaspects ofTaoism,Buddhismandthemeditation In summary,theCourtfindsthatPlaintiffs’claimsunderAlienTortClaimsActandTorture Before thisCourtisajointmotionbythePlaintiffsoftworelatedlawsuitsassertingclaimsunder Id.

I. Liu GENERAL BACKGROUND Compl.¶1.FalunGong has followersinChinaand 1 GRANTED DENIED

IN PART

IN PART astotheremaining and thatdefault United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 national deputychiefofthe PartyPropagandaDepartment. A in ChicagoagainstZhouYoukang, theChineseCommunist against supporters Human Rights, human supporters family membersoralawyerandwasbeateninterrogated regularly. arrested duringtheprotestandheldwithoutcharge. PRC’s persecution,arrest,andtortureofFalunGongpractitioners. operate underthePublicSecurityBureauofBeijing. government, includingthePublicSecurityBureauofBeijing. Beijing, Liuhadauthoritytoformulateallprovincialpoliciesandleadtheexecutivebranchesofcity Beijing hasbeenafocalpointfortherepressionandpersecutionofFalunGong. Defendant LiuQi(hereinafterreferredtoas“Liu”)servedthemayorofBeijing. A. of lawenforcementorprisonpersonnel. damaging drugs. hospitals, brutalbeatings,starvation,andotherformsoftorture,includingelectricshocknerve- some formof“punishment,”includingarrestanddetentioninprisonfacilities,laborcamps,mental Falun Gong. Congress, theChinesenationallegislature,passedaseriesoflawsoutlawing“cults,”definedtoinclude crackdown againstFalunGonganditspractitioners. declaring FalunGongtobeanillegalorganizationandordersinitiatingawidespreadgovernmental thirdsuitwasfiledinHawaii againstDingGuangen,aChineseCommunist Party Politburomemberand rightsviolationsdirectedagainsttheFalunGongmovement inChina. ZhaoZhifei,theheadof HubeiProvincialPublicSecurityBureau. CivilWrongsandForeignRelations:A“Sinical” LookattheUseofU.S.LitigationtoAddress RightsAbusesAbroad 1 In May2000,JaneDoeI,acitizenofthePRC,wenttoBeijing’sTiananmenSquareprotest Between February1999,beforethegovernmentalcrackdownbeganinmid-1999,andearly2003, Jane DoeI, The instantsuitsseekbothanawardofdamagesandequitablerelief. In July1999,ChinesePresidentJiangZeminandotherhighrankingofficialsissuedstatements ThetwoactionsbeforethisCourt havebroughtatleastfiveactions,includingthetwo here.AnactionwasbroughtinNewYork intheUnitedStatesanattempttoholdindividual officialsofthePRCaccountableforalleged Id. Asaresult,accordingtothePlaintiffs,over100,000practitionershavebeensubjected Liu Compl.¶31; et al. v.LiuQi , 52DePaulL.Rev.473,474-76(2002).SinceJuly, 2001,FalunGong Xia Compl.¶19.Plaintiffsallegemanyhavediedwhileinthecustody Id. arenotunique.Othersuitshavebeenbroughtby Falun Gong 1 Id. 2 Id. Liu Fortwentydays,shewasnotallowedtosee Compl.¶30.InOctober1999,thePeople’s PartySecretaryforSichuan Province. Id. Id. at 476. ¶ 35.Thepoliceandothersecurityforces Liu Compl.¶13.JaneDoeIwas Id. Onatleastoneoccasionshe Id. See

at 474.Anotherwasbrought

Jacques Liu Id. Compl.¶32. Asthemayorof DeLisle, Id. Human

at 475. United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 detained forthreedays,without anychargesbeingfiled. to books confiscated.Shewas takento against herand the United States,wasinterrogatedandbeatenduringhis 27hourdetentionandnotallowedtosleep,after deported toSwedenthefollowingday. charges againsthimandwasnotallowedtocontacthisembassyorconsultwithalawyer. in Chineseandtoallowthemtakepicturesofhim. interrogated byofficersandphysicallyassaultedfourguardswhenherefusedtosignastatementwritten deported backtoFrance. contact herembassyorconsultwithalawyer. arrest andinterrogation. arrested inTiananmenSquareduringademonstrationsupportoftheFalunGong: the UnitedStates. 24. Sufferingfurtherpersecutionafterherrelease,JaneDoeIIfledChinaandreceivedpoliticalasylumin point ofunconsciousness,strippedherclothing,andforce-fedviaatubeplacedinnose. charge forapproximatelytwenty-sevendays,duringwhichshewasinterrogated,regularlybeatentothe temporarily lostherhearingataprotestinTiananmenSquare. China andpresentlyresidesintheUnitedStates. release, JaneDoeIwassubjecttoconstantsurveillance,arrestsandinterrogation.Shesubsequentlyfled she wasforce-fedviaatubeplacedinhernose,whichcausedtocoughupblood. was torturedwithelectricshocksbyneedlesplacedinherbody. forcethemtorenouncetheir spiritualbeliefs.JaneDoeIIwasreturnedtoher home towninhandcuffsand People’sRepublicofChina onbehalfofarrestedFalunGongpractitioners.She wasnottoldofthecharges 2 3. 2. 1. On November20,2001,thefollowingindividualswhohavejoinedasplaintiffshereinwere In May2000,JaneDoeII,acitizenofthePRC,wasarrestedandbeatensoseverelythatshe JaneDoeIIhadalsopreviouslybeenarrestedinJuly 1999,whenshewenttoBeijingappeal wasrefusedcontactwith herfamilyoranattorney.Shewassearchedand FalunGong Leeshai Lemish,acitizenofbothIsraelandtheUnited Statesandauniversitystudentinthe Martin Larsson,acitizenofSwedenanduniversitystudentintheUnitedStates,was Helen Petit,acitizenofFrance,wasphysicallyandsexuallyassaultedbyofficersduringher Id. ¶ 25. Liu Id. Compl.¶26.Petitwasneveradvisedofanychargesandnotallowedto astadiumwiththousands of otherpractitionerswhereguardsattempted Id. Id. Id. Afterbeingdetainedfor24hoursormore,Petitwas ¶ 16. 3 Liu Liu Compl.¶27.Larssonwasneveradvisedofany Compl.¶¶17-24. 2

Liu Id. Compl.¶18.Shewasheldwithout ¶ 14.Whenshelosttheabilitytoeat, Id. ¶15.Afterher Id. Larssonwas Id. ¶¶18- United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Clerk ofthisCourtentered Liu’sdefault.OnMarch14,2002,JudgeClaudia Wilkenorderedthe infra documents byaprocessserver costs ofsuit,andotherfurtherreliefasthecourt maydeemjustandproper. ¶¶ 39-72.Plaintiffsseekcompensatory,punitiveand exemplarydamages,reasonableattorneys’feesand detention; (4)crimesagainsthumanity;and(5)interference withfreedomofreligionandbelief. Plaintiffs JaneDoeIandIIparticularly;(2)cruel,inhumanordegradingtreatment;(3)arbitrary other securityforcesunderhisauthority. law, toinvestigate,preventandpunishhumanrightsviolationscommittedbymembersofthepolice rights abusesagainstFalunGongpractitioners,andbreachedhisduty,underbothinternationalChinese known thatBeijingpoliceandothersecurityforceswereengagedinapatternpracticeofseverehuman forces intheircommissionoftheseabuses. the instigated, ordered,authorized,orincitedpoliceandothersecurityforcestocommittheabusessuffered by “ATCA”), 28U.S.C.§§1331,1350(2002).The Court hasjurisdictionoverthisactionbasedontheAlienTortClaimsAct(hereinafterreferredtoas (hereinafter referredtoasthe“TVPA”),28U.S.C.§1350note1(2002).The committed inviolationofinternationalanddomesticlawincludingtheTortureVictimProtectionAct Roland Odar(hereinafterreferredtoasthe“ him andwasnotallowedtocontacthisembassyorconsultwithalawyer. deported thefollowingdaytoSweden. charges againsthimandwasnotallowedtocontacthisembassyorconsultwithalawyer. which hewasplacedonaflighttoVancouver. Liu PartIII). Plaintiffs,andhadcommandorsuperiorresponsibilityover,controlled,aidedabettedsuch On March8,2002,the Defendant Liuwaspersonallyservedwiththesummons andcomplaint,supplemental The On February7,2002,JaneDoeI,II,HelenePetit,MartinLarsson,LeeshaiLemishand 4. Liu ComplaintallegesthefollowingclaimsunderTVPAand/orATCA:(1)tortureof Roland Odar,acitizenofSweden,wasbeatenduringhisarrestandinterrogation,

on February7,2002attheSanFranciscoInternational Airport(discussed Liu Plaintiffsfiledamotionfor entryofdefault.OnMarch12,2002,the Liu Id. Liu Compl.¶29.Hewasneveradvisedofanychargesagainst ¶¶33-34. Liu Compl.¶2.Thus,Liukneworreasonablyshouldhave Liu Plaintiffs”)filedsuitagainstDefendantLiufortorts Compl.¶28.Lemishwasneveradvisedofany Liu 4 PlaintiffsalsoallegethatDefendantLiuplanned, Id. Liu ¶72. Plaintiffsallegethis Id. Liu Liu Compl. United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Province aswhole,including lawenforcementandprisonmanagementquestions, andpoliciespractices that exercisesgeneraljurisdiction, supervisionandauthorityovergovernmental policiesandpracticesforthe publications andnotices. related tothecontrolofmedia,governmentalcommunications, anddistributionofgovernment Liao NingProvince,Xiamanagesandsupervisesthe NewsandPublicationsBureaualloperations carried outinDaLianCityduringthatperiod. Defendant Xiaplayedamajorpolicy-makingandsupervisory roleinthepoliciesandpracticesthatwere making andthecarryingoutofgovernmentpoliciesfunctionsforaffectedjurisdiction.Thus, systems. supervisory authorityovermunicipalaffairs,includingtheoperationoflawenforcementandcorrectional Deputy MayorofGeneralAffairsandMembertheDaLianCityCouncil,Xiaexercisedgeneral responsibility asDeputyProvincialGovernorforLiaoNingProvince. Council fromNovember2000throughMay2001. City, LiaoNingProvince,andthenasDeputyMayorofGeneralAffairsMembertheDaLianCity incarcerate andtortureFalunGongpractitioners. City, ispurportedtobeoneofthemostnotoriousprisonlaborcampsincountryandused Liao NingProvince. Falun Gongpractitionershaveallegedlydiedfromtortureinflictedinlaborcampsanddetentioncenters practitioners. the mostrepressiveandabusivejurisdictionsinChinawithregardtoarresttreatmentofFalunGong Governor oftheLiaoNingProvince.Accordingto B. this motionforjudgmentbydefault. referred toaMagistrateJudgeforreportandrecommendation.OnApril11,2002,the Plaintiffs tofileamotionfordefaultjudgmentwithin30days,andwhichuponfilingofthemotion,wasbe From January1998throughNovember2000,DefendantXiaservedasDeputyMayorofDaLian Defendant XiaDeren(hereinafterreferredtoas“Xia”)presentlyservesDeputyProvincial Plaintiff A, Id. ¶15.Xiaalsoservedonthegeneralgovernancebodythatoverseesanddirectspolicy- Xia Compl.¶20.SincePresidentJiangZemin’sbanningorderofJuly1999,atleast27 et al. Id. MasanjiaLaborCamp,locatedinthecapitalofLiaoNingProvince,Shenyang Id. v.XiaDeren ¶16.DefendantXiaalsoplaysakeypartinthegeneral governancebody Id. Id. In hispresentroleasDeputyProvincialGovernorof Xia 5 Compl.¶14.InMayof2001,heassumed Xia Plaintiffs,thisprovinceisknowntobeoneof Id. WhileservingasDeputyMayor, Liu Plaintiffsfiled United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 governmental reprisals. and theTVPA.28U.S.C. §1350.The against DefendantXiafortortscommittedinviolation ofinternationalanddomesticlawundertheATCA allowed tosleep. On otheroccasions,hewashungfromwaterpipes for threedays,handcuffedtootherprisoners,andnot unconsciousness, withbloodcomingfromhismouth andnose,hisfootbadlymangled. tortured repeatedly.Ononeoccasionwhenherefusedtoanswerquestions,wasbeaten April 2000,hewasarrestedasecondtimeinLiaoNingProvinceandwhiledetention,beaten went toBeijingsupportFalunGongpractitionersandprotesttheirrepression. detained foranumberofdays,andbrutallybeatenbythepolicewithchainsanelectricbatonwhen he long-term detentionanddeprivationoflibertysecuritytheperson. subjected tophysicalabuse,tortureandhighlydegradingtreatmentpunishment,includingarbitrary, detained foranextendedperiod,andagainin2001. Xia her parent,whostillresidesinLiaoNingProvinceandiscurrentlyincarceratedMasanjiaLaborCamp. torture devicecalledDiLao. forced towatchthetortureofothers,includinganotherFalunGongpractitionerwhowasplacedonarusty prisoners forprolongedperiodsoftime,beingdeniedsleep,usetoiletfacilities,and being deniedfoodandwater,requiredtoremainstandinghandcuffedagainstthebacksofother long periodsontwooccasionsin1999and2000.Whiledetention,shewassubjectedtotorture,suchas during theperiodthatXiaservedasDeputyMayorofDaLianCity.Shewasarrestedanddetainedfor movement anditspractitioners. associated withthegovernmentallymandatedcrack-downandpersecutionofFalunGongspiritual Compl.¶10.PlaintiffB’sParentwasarrestedanddetainedtwice,firstin2000whentheparent 3 On February8,2002,PlaintiffsA,B,andC(hereinafter referredtoasthe“ In 1999,PlaintiffC,a39yearoldmaleandformerresidentofLiaoNingProvince,wasarrested, Plaintiff B,aformerresidentofLiaoNingProvince,bringsthiscomplaintonbehalfherselfand Plaintiff A, Plaintiffsfiledunderfictitious namestoprotectthemselvesandfamilymembers living inthePRCfrom Id. 3 a53yearoldfemale,wascitizenandresidentofDaLianCityinLiaoNingProvince Xia Compl.¶8.TheCourtpermitted thePlaintiffstofileconfidentialaffidavits. Xia Id. Compl.¶¶9,25. ¶17. Xia PlaintiffsallegethatDefendant Xia’sactionsledtotheabuses Id. 6 Atthelaborcamp,PlaintiffB’sParenthasbeen Id. Xia Xia Compl.¶11.In Plaintiffs”)filedsuit Id. ¶¶ 11,27. United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Plaintiffs’ motionsfordefaultjudgment. this Courtforconsolidatedhearing. report andrecommendation.Sincethe within 30days,anduponfilingofthemotionfordefaultjudgment,referredcasetothisCourta 2002, thecasewasreassignedfromJudgeLarsontoWilkenforallfurtherproceedings. Clerk ofthisCourtenteredXia’sdefault.Havingbeennotifiedarelatedcase,the but didnotenteranappearance. and otherfurtherreliefasthecourtmaydeemjustproper. injunctive reliefprohibitingfurtherunlawfulaction,reasonableattorneys’feesandcostsforthislitigation, unlawful natureofthepatternandpracticegrossviolationshumanrightsthathavetakenplace, Plaintiffs seekcompensatory,punitiveandexemplarydamages;adeclaratoryjudgmentconfirmingthe violation ofone’srighttofreedomthought,conscienceandreligion. torture; (2)genocide;(3)violationofone’srighttolife;(4)arbitraryarrestandimprisonment;(5) (discussed documents byaprocessserver never movedtocertifytheclass. international anddomesticlaws. capacity andundercoloroflaw,topersecute,punishintimidateFalunGongpractitionersinviolation inflicted uponthem.TheyallegethatDefendantXiatogetherwithotherofficials,actedintheirofficial On August5,2002,thisCourtorderedajointbriefing scheduleandjointhearingdateonthe On August1,2002,JudgeWilkenorderedthe On June18,2002,the The Defendant Xiawasalsopersonallyservedwiththesummons,complaint,andsupplemental infra Xia Complaintalleges, PartIII).

Xia on February8,2002attheFremontHiltonHotelinNewark,California Xia Plaintiffsfiledamotionforentryofdefault.OnJune26,2002,the inter alia Compl.¶28.ThesuitisstyledasaclassactionbutPlaintiffshave Xia casewasrelatedtothe , thefollowingclaimsunderTVPAand/orATCA:(1) 7 Xia Plaintiffstofileamotionfordefaultjudgment Liu Id. case,bothcaseswerereferredto ¶36.DefendantXiawasserved Xia Compl.¶¶29-35.The Liu case,onJune28, Xia United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 banned afterthePRCconcluded thatitwasa“cult”andan“unregisteredillegal organization.” damages totheChinesesocietyandpeople.” PRC contendsthatFalunGongfollowershaveperpetrated crimesthathavebrought“extremelygrave Unwarranted Lawsuits,September2002,¶¶1-2(hereinafter “TranslationofChina’sStatements”).The Translation ofStatementtheGovernmentPeople’s RepublicofChinaon“FalunGong” Gong practitionersatlargeisconsistentwithChina’s domesticandinternationallegalobligations. practitioners’ lawsuitsagainstChinesepublicofficials are“unwarranted,”astheofficials’treatmentofFalun (emphasis inoriginal). Letter fromWilliamH.Taft,IVtoAssistantAttorneyGen.McCallumofSeptember25,2002,at7-8 that: Department”) urgedagainstadjudicationoftheinstantsuits.Initsletter,Departmentexpressesview default judgmentagainstDefendantsLiuandXia. Interest andastatementmadebythePeople’sRepublicofChinainresponsetoPlaintiffs’motionsfor C. In itslettertransmittedtotheCourt,PRCcontends, In itsStatementofInterest,theUnitedStatesStateDepartment(hereinafterreferredtoas“State On September27,2002,attheinvitationofthisCourt,UnitedStatessubmittedaStatement Response bytheU.S.StateDepartmentandPRC argue infavoroffindingthesuitsnon-justiciable. foreign policyconsequencesthatsuchlitigationcangenerate,wouldinourview . [P]racticalconsiderations,whencoupledwiththepotentiallyseriousadverse interfere with,theExecutiveBranch’sconductofforeignpolicy. to theirgovernment’spolicy..Suchlitigationcanservedetractfrom,or judgment ontheactsofforeignofficialstakenwithintheirowncountriespursuant We believe,however,thatU.S. of ourbroaderforeignpolicyinterests. human rightsinChina,anditwillcontinuetoapplythesetoolswithinthecontext . TheExecutiveBranchhasmanytoolsatitsdisposaltopromoteadherence advance thecauseforhumanrightsinChina.. the casesbeforeMagistrateChen,isnotbestwayforUnitedStatesto the Chinesegovernment’sactionsagainstFalunGong]movement,including In ourjudgment,adjudicationofthesemultiplelawsuits[challengingthelegality Id . ¶1.ThePRCarguesthatFalunGonginparticular was courts 8 shouldbecautiouswhenaskedtositin inter alia , thattheFalunGong Id . ¶2. United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 (“Entry ofdefaultjudgment isnotmandatoryuponPlaintiff’srequest,andthe court hasdiscretiontorequire by default”); (“necessary factsnotcontained inthepleadings,andclaimswhicharelegallyinsufficient, arenotestablished claims forrelief. Cir. 1978).However,thisCourtmuststillreviewthe factstoinsurethatthePlaintiffshaveproperlystated Inc. v.Heidenthal other competentevidencesubmittedbythemoving party arenormallytakenastrue. 915, 924(9thCir.1986); alleged orthatadefaultjudgmentisinappropriateforotherreasons. within thecourt’sdiscretionandmayberefusedwherecourtdeterminesnojustifiableclaimhasbeen final judgmentinacase.However,entryofdefaultisnotmatterright.Itsentirely two nations. PRC concludeswithareiterationofthedetrimentaleffectsadjudicationoncommoninterests and cooperationpoisonthefriendlyrelationsbetweentwocountries.” which theysueChineseofficialswhovisittheUnitedStatesinaneffort“toobstructnormalexchanges Id. Id. Constitution andlawsthus,constituteactsofstate. and punishingindividualsforillegalactivitiesrelatedtotheFalunGongaresupportedbyChinese Court jurisdictionovertheclaims. posits thatnoneoftheexceptionsunderForeignSovereignImmunityAct(“FSIA”)appliestogrant pose a“seriousthreattopublicsecurity.” The PRCaccusesFalunGong’sfounder,LiHongzhi,andcertainpractitionersofcommittingactivitiesthat ThePRCspecificallyaccusesFalunGongorganizationsbasedintheUnitedStatesof“frame-ups” Moreover,adjudicationofthe“falseandunwarrantedlawsuits[is]detrimentaltoChina-USrelations.” Where, ashere,adefaulthasbeenentered,thefactual allegationsofeachcomplainttogetherwith Federal RuleofCivilProcedure55(b)(2)permitsacourt,followingdefendant’sdefault,toenter Furthermore, thePRCcontendsthatplaintiffs’claimsarenotjusticiable. Apple ComputerInc.v.Micro Team Id. See Crippsv.LifeIns.Co.ofN.Am. , 826F.2d915,917(9thCir.1987); Aldabe v. II. CRITERIA FORDEFAULTJUDGMENT Id. Inaddition,thePRCcontendsboththatoutlawingFalunGong Id . ¶1. , 616F.2d1089,1092(9thCir.1980). , 2000WL1897354,at*3 n.5(N.D.Cal.2000) 9 Id. , 980F.2d1261,1267(9thCir.1992) Danning v.Lavine Assuch,noforeigncourtscanquestionthem. See

Draper v.Coombes , 572F.2d1386,1388(9th Id See . ¶3.ThePRC

TeleVideo Sys, Id. , 792F.2d ¶4.The

United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 BAP 1994)(“Thecourt,prior totheentryofadefaultjudgment,hasanindependent dutytodeterminethe declining toenteradefault judgmentinfavorofappellant.”); lack ofmeritinappellant’s substantiveclaims,wecannotsaythatthedistrictcourt abuseditsdiscretionin merits ofEitel’ssubstantiveclaim,baseduponthepleadings.”); discretion todenydefaultjudgmentwhere“thedistrict courtcouldhavehadseriousreservationsaboutthe Plaintiffs’ substantiveclaims,becloselyscrutinized. Court’s discretioninrulingonamotiontoenterdefault judgment,particularlythemeritsandjusticiabilityof of sovereignimmunityandcouldimpactforeignrelationsdiplomacy. persecution, andarbitraryarrestimprisonment.Thecasesimplicateimportantconsequentialissues sanctioned bythePRCincluding, bring claimsunderACTAandTVPAforhumanrightsviolationsallegedlycommittedinChina even aminor,componentofthebusinessfederalcourts:itisminusculepartwhatwedo.”).Plaintiffs L.J. 539,539(1997)(“Itissafetosaythat,quantitatively,internationalhumanrightslawnotamajor, or Adjudication ofInternationalHumanRightsViolationsUnderTheAlienTortStatute to recoverunpaidcontributionsemployeebenefitfunds) Inc. which defaultjudgmentsaresought. F. Supp.2d1172,1174(C.D.Cal.2002). Procedure favoringdecisiononthemerits. the defaultwasduetoexcusableneglect;and(7)strongpolicyunderlyingFederalRulesofCivil possibility ofprejudicetotheplaintiff;(5)adisputeconcerningmaterialfacts;(6)whether substantive claim;(2)thesufficiencyofcomplaint;(3)summoneyatstakeinaction;(4) that acourtmayconsiderindeterminingwhethertograntdefaultjudgment:(1)themeritsofplaintiff’s Wright &ArthurR.Miller, some proofofthefactsthatmustbeestablishedinordertodetermineliability.”)(citing10ACharlesAlan , 2003WL1790837(N.D.Cal.2003)(defaultjudgmentinERISAactionagainstdistressedemployer Accordingly, thenatureandgravityof The consolidatedactionsnowbeforethisCourtarehardlythekindofagardenvarietycasesin In Eitel v.McCool, Federal PracticeandProcedure 782 F.2d1470(9thCir.1986),theNinthCircuitenumeratedsevenfactors inter alia Cf. e.g.,Bd.ofTrs.SheetMetalWorkersv.Gen.Facilities, Id , torture,genocide,crimesagainsthumanity,religious . at1471-72; Liu See Eitel 10 and Xia with see alsoPepsico,Inc.v.Cal.Sec.Cans InreKubick , 782F.2dat1472(Therewasnoabuseof §2688(3rded.1998)). casesmandatethefactorsthatinform Aldabe Hon. JohnM.Walker,Jr., , 616F.2dat1092-93(“Giventhe , 171B.R.658,662(9th Cir. , 41St.LouisU. Domestic , 238 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 1608(e) (1994)(defaultjudgment shallnotbeenteredagainstaforeignstateunless claimantestablishes particularly insuitsagainst foreignstates.”)(hereinafterreferredtoas“Restatement”). See not entirelyexcusable,itislessculpableinthesecircumstances. Filartiga v.Pena-Irala Estate ofFerdinandE.Marcos to thatofformerofficialsanddictatorswhohavetaken residenceintheUnitedStates. States ( human rightssuitsundertheATCAandTVPAmaylieagainstindividualsservedwhilevisitingUnited substantial contactwiththeUnitedStates.BothwereservedduringbriefvisitstoWhile Burnham v.SuperiorCourt service waseffectedonDefendantsLiuandXia,thuspersonaljurisdictionobtainedunder and thestrongpolicyfavoringdecisiononmerits.Finally,although,asdiscussedbelow,personal unreliability ofthedefaultprocessinthiscontext,disputabilityfactsmaterialtothesebroaderclaims, squarely challengeofficialPRCpolicyareinappropriateforadjudicationbydefaultinviewofthemerits, the explained below,Plaintiffs’broadclaimswhichinvolvesystemic,class-basedallegationsand regarding thesumofmoneyatstakeandpossibleprejudicetoPlaintiffsareirrelevant.Furthermore, as declaratory relief.Becausejusticiabilityconcernsprecludedamagesandinjunctiverelief,the claims pertainingtoindividualPlaintiffsarejusticiableandsustainable,butthatreliefshouldbelimited important immunityandjusticiabilityissuescentraltothiscase.Thatanalysisdictatesthatsomebutnotall and thesufficiencyofcomplaintevidencesupportingtheirclaims.Themeritsanalysisencompasses the CourtaccordsgreatestweighttofactorsthataddressmeritsofPlaintiffs’substantiveclaims upon Plaintiffs’motionforentryofdefaultjudgment,mustproceedwithgreatcaution.Aswillbeevident, judgment whenplaintiffhadnomeritoriousclaim). (in constitutionalactionagainstprisonofficials,districtcourtdidnotabuseitsdiscretionindenyingdefault sufficiency ofaclaim,asstatedinRule55(b)(2)..”); Restatement (Third)ofForeign RelationsLaw§459cmtc(1987)(“Defaultjudgments aredisfavored, see e.g.Kadicv.Karadzic Finally, itshouldbenotedthatdefaultjudgmentsagainst foreignnationsaregenerallydisfavored. Given theunusualcircumstancesandpotentialimplicationsofthesecases,Court,inruling , 630F.2d876(2dCir.1980).Thus,whiletheirfailure toappearanddefendis , 495U.S.604(1990),thereisnoevidencethateitherDefendanthashad , Human RightsLitig. , 70F.3d232(9thCir.1995)),Defendants’situationstandsincontrast 11 Lewis v.Lynn (“ Hilao II ”), 25F.3d1467(9thCir.1994); , 236F.3d766,767(5thCir.2001) Cf. See e.g.Inre: 28U.S.C.§ Eitel factors United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 outset whetherserviceofprocess wasproper,basedonallavailableinformation. jurisdictional implications. Moreover,theinterestsofjudicialeconomyweighin favorofdeterminingatthe because ithas that theSFCCClacksstandingtoraiseobjection. TheCourt,however,permittedthefilingofbrief had notinfactbeenproperlyservedwithprocess. SFCCC The SFCCCsubmittedadeclarationofSanFrancisco PoliceOfficerHigginssuggestingthatDefendantLiu amicus curiae Liu default judgment. policies thatallegedlyhavebeensanctionedbythePRCgovernment. officials inthePRC,asdiscussedbelow,suitsrequireCourttoassesslegalityofpracticesand judgments forlackofjurisdiction).Whilethesuitsatbararenominallybroughtagainsttwogovernment instruments issuedbytheRussianImperialGovernmentin1916,districtcourtproperlyvacateddefault USSR apparent authoritytoobtainloanandwaivegovernmentssovereignimmunity); motion tosetasidedefaultjudgmentwheretherewerefactualissuesaswhetherU.N.ambassadorhad Bank v.Gov’tofAnt.&Barb. have itsdayincourtwillsignificantlyfurtherUnitedStatesforeignpolicyinterests); of subjectmatterjurisdictionandwhereStateDepartmentinformedthecourtthatpermittingPRCto issued byImperialChineseGovernmentin1911,districtcourtproperlysetasidedefaultjudgmentforlack F.2d 1490,1494-96(11thCir.1986)(inactionbybanksagainstthePRCforpaymentofbearerbonds default judgmentsagainstforeignstatestobesetaside. right toreliefby“evidencesatisfactorythecourt.”).Courtshavegoneconsiderablelengthsallow case. , 841F.2d26,27(2dCir.1988)(percuriam)(inactionagainsttheSovietUniontorecoverondebt The CourtgrantedtheSanFranciscoChineseChamber ofCommerce(“SFCCC”)leavetofilean Before addressingthemerits,Courtmustfirstturntoquestionofpersonaljurisdictionin The abovefactorsinformtheCourt’scautiousapproachinassessingPlaintiffs’motionsforentryof sua sponte brief whichraisedthequestionofwhetherservicewas properlyeffectedonDefendantLiu. powertoexaminewhether serviceonDefendantswaspropergivenits , 877F.2d189,196(2d.Cir.1989)(reversingdistrictcourt’sdenialof III. SERVICE OFPROCESS 12 See

Jackson v.People’sRepublicofChina Amicus Curiae Brief, at2.Plaintiffscontend Carl Marks&Co.,Inc.v. Cf. Zhouv.Peng see also

First Fid. , 2002 , 794 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 court held: said “No,no,no”anddeflected thepapers. server saidtothedefendant was“Youwantthisforthe..”beforepriest accompanying theCardinal defamation suit,isdispositivetotheinstantcase.However, in found thataCatholicCardinalfromPolandvisiting Albany, NewYorkwasnotpersonallyservedwitha inconsistent withtheevidenceofservicesubmittedby Plaintiffs. view theeventsthatconstitutedserviceofprocessand thefactthathedidnotseeactualserviceis Higgins turnedhisattentiontothematter. was turnedtotheMayor.LeiningDecl.¶7.ItappearsthatattemptedserviceoccurredbeforeOfficer escorting DefendantLiuwhilewasatthefrontofgroup;timeHigginsheardyelling,hisback inconsistent withthisevidence.OfficerHigginsacknowledgedthathewasatthebackofgroup contradictory evidence. submitted bythePlaintiffsregardingserviceofprocessmustbetakenastrueatleastwherethereisno were notaccepted.LeiningDecl.¶8.Sincedefaulthasalreadybeenentered,competentevidence 6; VideoClip3.TheserverthenofferedthedocumentstomembersofMayorLiu’sentourage,butthey to, butyouhavebeenformallyservedbytheU.S.DistrictCourtofNorthernCalifornia.”LeiningDecl. ¶ Liu turnedawaywithoutacceptingthepapers,serverstated,“Youcanacceptthemoryoudonothave the U.S.DistrictCourtofCalifornia.It’sserious.” Complaint andothercourtpaperstotheDefendantsaid,“Mr.LiuQi,thesearelegaldocumentsfrom entered ascreeningareaattheSanFranciscoairport;processserverheldoutcopyofSummons, the evidence,itappearsthatprocessserverstoodaboutanarms-lengthawayfromDefendantLiuashe event attheSanFranciscoInternationalAirportwhereDefendantLiuisallegedtohavebeenserved.From arguing thatservicewasinadequate,requiringadditionalbriefingandaseparaterulingonthisissue). attempted serviceonPremierofthePRC,U.S.StateDepartmentsubmittedastatementinterest WL 1835608(S.D.N.Y.2002)(afterallegedvictimsofhumanrightsabusesatTiananmenSquare The SFCCCarguesthat The declarationofSanFranciscoPoliceOfficerHigginssubmittedbytheSFCCCisnot In responsetotheSFCCC’sbrief, TeleVideo Sys.,Inc.v.Heidenthal Weiss v.Glemp Id. ¶¶5-7.Evidently,OfficerHigginswasnotinapositionto Id . at222.Baseduponfacts foundbythecourt, Liu , 792F.Supp.215(S.D.N.Y.1992),inwhichthecourt Plaintiffssubmitteddeclarationsandavideoclipofthe

Leining Decl.¶¶4-5andVideoClip2.WhenMayor 13 , 826F.2d915,917(9thCir.1987). Weiss , thecourtfoundthatallprocess Weiss United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Wright &ArthurR.Miller, leaving thepapersatalocation, such Marshall 1983) and duckedbehindadoortoavoidservice); sufficient whensheriffpitchedthepapersthrougha hole indefendant’sscreendooraftershe to leavethepaperswithdefendant. proximity defendant attemptstoavoidservice Mao, setanexampleoflearningEnglishforthepublic.”). committee, Radio TV.”); speaking Chinese viewersweresurprised http://englis July 29,2001, Games. Mayor Karadzic’s name,andannouncedthepurposeofservingcourtpapers.Theservercamewithintwo to point. In the pendencyofaction.” Mayor Liuwere“reasonablycalculated,underallthecircumstances,toapprise[the]interestedpartiesof District CourtofNorthernCalifornia.”VideoClip3. server stated,“Youcanacceptthemoryoudonothaveto,butbeenformallyservedbytheU.S. Defendant Liuthatserviceofprocesswasbeingeffectuated.Asnoted,thevideoclipestablishes Id . at225(citing Station, (districtcourterredwhen itdismissed Liu’sEnglishfluencyhasbeenwell-publicizedaspartofBeijing’scampaigntohostthe2008Olympic see alsoAnInterviewwithLi

5 4 The Courtfindsthat In contrastto refusedtoserveWorldBank: “Whenapersonrefusestoacceptservice,service maybeeffectedby See ThefactthatDefendantLiudidnottakepossession ofthecourtpapersisnoimport.Wherea influentEnglishtothecrucialIOCmeetingMoscow,whichwasbroadcastliveonChina’snational ThePlaintiffspresentedevidencethatDefendantLiuspeaksfluentEnglish.EisenbrandtDecl. tothedefendant,clearlycommunicatesintentserve courtdocuments,andmakesreasonableefforts Kadic “LeadersoftheMunicipalGovernmentlikeMayor LiuQi,ViceMayorsLinWenyiandZhang h.peopledaily.com.cn/200107/29/eng20010729_76042.html (“OnJuly13,tensofmillions e.g available available at . , aprocessserverapproachedRadovanKaradzicinManhattanhotellobby,called

Olympic Mullane v.Cent.HanoverBank&TrustCo process arenotapplicablehere. the casescitedbyPlaintiffinvolvingdefendantsdeterminedtoevade evidence doesnotshowCardinalGlempattemptedtoevadeservice, a leaflet,protest,oranothernon-legaldocument.Becausethe papers profferedbyMrs.Frischcouldjustaswellhavebeenapetition, accompanying him,thatserviceofprocesswasbeingattempted.The reasonably calculatedtoapprise”CardinalGlemp,orthepersons The Courtconcludestheattemptedservicewasnoteffected“inaway Weiss, at BiddingSuccessSpursEnglishLanguageFeverinChina, http://english.21dnn.com/35/2002-4-10/[email protected] Federal Practice&Procedure

Kadic v.Karadzic Mullane the evidencehere tosee69-year-oldVice-PremierLiLanguing,andLiuQi,mayorofBeijing, e.g asonatableorthefloor, nearthatperson.”); , 339U.S.at314. HonghaifromBeijingCitizenSpeakEnglishCommittee, . byrefusingtotakethepapers,itis See Errionv.Connell Novak v.WorldBank sua

establishes thattheprocessserverdidinfactapprise , 70F.3d232,246(2dCir.1995),ratherthan sponte 14 4 TheCourtfindsthatPlaintiffs’effortstoserve 5 forfailuretoeffectservice incasewhereU.S. §1095 (2ded.1987). 236F.2d447,457 ., 339U.S.306,314(1950)). , 703F.2d1305,1310n.14(D.C.Cir. sufficientiftheserverisinclose (9thCir.1956)(service (quotingtheheadofthis People’s see also spokewithhim 4CharlesA. DailyOnline, Weiss Beijing , ison ¶2. United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 also Karadzic opportunity undisputed the Hotel at39900BalentineDrive in he hand.”). service occur (Cal. away server clearly impossible.”); is to P. allows forpersonalservice“pursuantto affords thedefendantafairopportunitytoanswercomplaintandpresentdefensesobjections.”). (1996) (“corefunction”ofserviceistoapprisedefendantanaction“inamannerandattimethat of theaction. satisfied becausetheeffortsofPlaintiffs’processserverwere“reasonablycertaintoinformthoseaffected” foreign Internetcorporation).Inthiscase,thedueprocessrequirementsFed.R.Civ.P.4(e)(2)havebeen Intern. Interlink 1984); them. was proper. (1990)). Thedistrictcourt,in the requirementsofdueprocess. court withguidancethatFed.R.Civ.P.4(e)(2) which pointthepapersfelltoground. six feetofKaradzicandattemptedtohandhimthedocuments,butwasinterceptedbysecurityofficers,at establishedthatadefendantwillnotbepermitted todefeatservicebyrenderingphysical avoidpersonalservice. 4(e)(1).Onthispoint,Cal.Civ.Proc.Code§413.10 personallyservedthedefendantwithsummonsand complaintonFebruary8,2002attheFremontHilton defendantinperson,and that anaidethengrabbedthemanddroppedthepapers tothefloor. Ct.App.1934)(“Wetakeitthatwhenmenarewithin easyspeakingdistanceofeachotherandfacts andcausedthedocumentstobedislodgedfromhis windshieldwiper); UnitedFood&CommercialWorkersUnionv.AlphaBetaCo. thatwouldconvinceareasonablemanpersonal serviceofalegaldocumentisbeingattempted, cannotbeavoidedbydenyingserviceandmoving away withoutconsentingtotakethedocumentin Chan v.Soc’yExpeditions,Inc 7 6 The keyquestioniswhetherapartyreceivessufficientnoticeofthecomplaintandactionagainst RegardingDefendantXia,CharlesLiofSanCarlos California declaredunderpenaltyofperjurythat WhileserviceofprocessishereinanalyzedunderRule4(e)(2),theCourtnotesthat4also factsestablishthatservice onDefendantXiawasinamanneraffording“the defendantafair toanswerthecomplaintand presentdefensesandobjections.” communicatedthenatureofdocuments,atwhich pointdefendantjumpedinhiscar,drove Id Trujillo v. Mullane , 1996WL194298at*2. . at*2. , 284F.3d1007(9thCir.2002)(permittingemailasmeansofalternativeserviceon , 339U.S.at315; See e.g. Doe v.Karadzic Newark,California.Summons. Mr.Lideclaredthathegavethecopiesto , 162P.2d640,641-42(Cal.Ct.App. Id ,

Khourie, . at247(citing thelawofstateinwhichdistrictcourtislocated.”Fed.R.Civ. . 39F.3d1398,1404(9thCir.1994); see alsoHendersonv.UnitedStates Id . TheSecondCircuitremandedtheserviceissuetodistrict Crew&Jaegerv.Sabek 6 , 1996WL194298(S.D.N.Y.1996),foundthatservice specificallyauthorizespersonalservicethatcomportswith Burnham v.Super.Ct.ofCal. 15 et seq . issimilarlyflexiblewhenadefendantattempts , 269Cal.Rptr.687,689 1945)(servicewassufficientwhen , 736F.2d1371,1382(9thCir. Henderson In reBall Cf. RioProps.,Inc.v. , 517U.S.654,672 , 495U.S.604 , 517U.S.at672; , 38P.2d411,412 (1990)(“It Id . The 7 see United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 the causeofactionbebased on“violationsofspecific,universalandobligatory internationalhumanrights 1013 (9thCir.2002).What isrequired,inadditiontotheclaimbeingbrought byanalienforatort,isthat allegedly violated,neednot provideaspecificrighttosue. Marcos, HumanRightsLitig.(“HilaoII”) F.3d –,2003WL21264256at*5(9thCir.June3, 2003)( jurisdiction andasubstantiverightofactionfor“violation ofthelawnations.” 18 U.S.(5Wheat.)154,160-61(1820)). countries, treaties,judicialopinionsandtheworksofscholars. of customaryinternationallaw,determinedbytheSupremeCourttoincludepracticesother and existsamongthenationsofworldtoday.” so doing,thecourtconcludedthatlawofnationsisnotastaticbodylaw,butone“hasevolved accepted normsoftheinternationallawhumanrights,regardlessnationalityparties.” Second Circuitheldthat“deliberatetortureperpetratedundercolorofofficialauthorityviolatesuniversally Dolly’s brothertodeathinretaliationforDr.Filartiga’spoliticalactivitiesParaguay. against AmericoPena-Irala,theformerInspectorGeneralofPoliceParaguay,forallegedlytorturing Joel FilartigaandhisdaughterDolly,bothcitizensofParaguaylivingintheUnitedStates,broughtanaction violation ofthelawnations. for analienattemptingtosueaforeignnationalthetortoftorturecommittedoutsideUnitedStates in Tort ClaimsAct? Kathryn L.Pryor, Though createdundertheJudiciaryActof1789,ATCAwaslittleuseduntillasttwodecades. for atortonly,committedinviolationofthelawnationsortreatyUnitedStates.” provides thattheUnitedStatesdistrictcourts“shallhaveoriginaljurisdictionofanycivilactionbyanalien U.S.C. §1350,andTortureVictimProtectionAct(“TVPA”),28§1350note2(a)(1).TheATCA IV. Consistent with In 1980,theSecondCircuitheldATCAconferredjurisdictionandprovidedacauseofaction The PlaintiffsinbothactionsbringtheirclaimsundertheAlienTortClaimsAct(“ATCA”),28 THE ALIENTORTCLAIMSACTANDTORTUREVICTIMPROTECTION , 29 Does TheTortureVictimProtectionActSignaltheImminentDemiseofAlien

Va. J.Int’l.L. Filartiga Filartiga v.Pena-Irala , theNinthCircuithaslikewiseheldthatATCA provides bothfederal

969, 974,978(1989). , 25F.3d1467,1475(9thCir.1994).Theinternational law, Id. 16 at881.Thecourtlookedtocontemporarysources , 630F.2d876(2dCir.1980).In Id. en banc ; Papav.UnitedStates Id. at880(citing ); In reEstateofFerdinandE. United Statesv.Smith Alvarez-Machain Id. , 281F.3d1004, at878.The Filartiga Id. §1350. Id. , – , Dr. In , United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 independently createsuch acauseofaction.726F.2dat799. specifically createacause of action,itwasuptoCongressexplicitlygrantone andthattheATCAdidnot of rehearing reheard Treatment orPunishmentopenedforsignatureFebruary 4,1985, legislation carriesouttheintentofConventionAgainst TortureandOtherCruel,InhumanorDegrading have beentorturedabroad.H.R.Rep.No.102-367, at3-5;S.Rep.No.102-249,4-5.The action againsttheperpetratorsofsuchabuse,aswelltoextendacivilremedyU.S.citizenswhomay statute, asstatedbyboththeHouseandSenatereports,istounambiguouslyprovideafederalcauseof action, beliablefordamagestothatindividual.”28U.S.C.§1350note2(a)(1).Thepurposeofthe apparent authority,orcoloroflaw,anyforeignnation.subjectsanindividualtotortureshall,inacivil extrajudicial killings.TheTVPAprovidesinrelevantpartthat“[a]nindividualwho,underactualor S. Rep.No.102-249(II). Libyan ArabRepublic, recourse specifictortoftorture.CongresspassedtheTVPAinresponseto Machain nations” actionableundertheATCA,evenifthosenormshavenotachieved international lawascertained 714-15 (9thCir.1992). constitutes aviolationofthe“lawnations.” fundamental anduniversallyrecognizedthattheyarebindingonnationsevenifdonotagreetothem– obligatory,” quoting F.3d 1373,1383(9thCir.1998)(applicablenormofinternationallawmustbe“specific,universal,and 87). governments.’” standards which‘confer[]fundamentalhumanrightsuponallpeoplevis-a-vistheirown thelawofnations.Inhis concurringopinion,JudgeBorkopinedthatwhere internationallawdidnot See alsoAlvarez-Machain bytheNinthCircuit 9 8 The TortureVictimsProtectionActof1991(“TVPA”)expresslyprovidesacauseactionforthe In TheCourtnotesthereiscurrentlyonecaseinvolving ATCAclaimsforhumanrightsviolationsbeing , –F.3d2003WL21264256at*6. en banc Tel-Oren Hilao II, granted,–F.3d.,2003WL359787(9thCir.2003). Hilao , JudgeBorkquestioned 8 726 F.2d774(D.C.Cir.1984). Moreover,customaryinternationallaw,establishednormsofcontemporary 25 F.3dat1475,

II TheTVPAmakesclearthatacauseofactionliesforvictimstortureand ). Conductwhichviolates e.g. en bygeneralusageandpracticeofnations,alsoconstitutesthe“law banc , –F.3d2003WL21264256at*5; .

Doe Papa v.Unocal Siderman deBlakev.RepublicofArg. Filartiga , 281F.3dat1013; 17 jus cogens ’s holdingthattheATCA permits , 9 –F.3d.2002WL31063976(9thCir.2002), 28U.S.C.§1350,H.R.Rep.No.102-367(I); available at –normsofinternationallawthatareso

(citing Martinez v.LosAngeles, Filartiga Filartiga jus cogens and , 630F.2dat885- , 965F.2d699, status. suitsforviolations Tel-Oren v. Alvarez- 141 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9-10. a foreignstate’spublicacts, butnotincasesbasedoncommercialorprivate acts. S.Rep.No. 892 F.2d1419,1432(9th Cir.1989). of doctrine U.S. wouldfollowtherestrictivetheoryofsovereign immunity. the StateDepartment’sLegalAdvisortoJustice Department thatputothernationsonnoticethe immunity, theStateDepartmentadheredtopolicy announcedinthe“TateLetter,”a1952letterfrom important implicationsforforeignrelations,theCourtaddressesquestion FSIA sovereignimmunityappliestotheindividualDefendants.Becauseissueisjurisdictionalandhas states andtheiragenciesinstrumentalities.”).Thequestionpresentedintheinstantcasesiswhether the 304 (9thCir.1997)(“TheFSIAisthesolebasisforsubjectmatterjurisdictionoversuitsinvolvingforeign obtaining jurisdictionoveraforeignstateinourcourts.”); the textandstructureofFSIAdemonstrateCongress’intentionthatbesolebasisfor See ArgentineRepublicv.AmeradaHessShippingCorp. lose itssovereignimmunity.TheFSIAexpresslygovernstheimmunityofforeigngovernments. foreign stateoritsentitiesandagentstoprescribethecircumstancesunderwhichawould U.S.C. §1605(2002),toguidetheU.S.courtsindeterminingwhenpartiescanmaintainalawsuitagainst a justiciable undertheactofstatedoctrine. threshold questionsofwhetherthesuitisbarredunderForeignSovereignImmunityActand in theUnitedStates.”S.Rep.No.102-249,at4. Senate onOctober27,1990,byensuringthat“torturersanddeathsquadswillnolongerhaveasafehaven http://193.194.138.190/html/menu3/b/h_cat39.htm (hereinafterreferredtoas“CAT”),ratifiedbytheU.S. permittingthecourttoinquireintomatterofsovereign immunity 11 10 Prior totheenactmentofFSIA,whenfacedwithforeigngovernments’requestsforsovereign Congress enactedtheForeignSovereignImmunityAct(hereinafterreferredtoas“FSIA”),28 Before reachingthesubstantiveclaimsadvancedbyPlaintiffs,Courtmustaddress mayberaised Underthe“restrictive”theory of Moreover,asdiscussedbelow,forthesamereasons theNinthCircuithasheldactofstate sua sponte V. THE FOREIGNSOVEREIGNIMMUNITYACT , thepotentialimplicationsforforeign sovereignimmunity,aforeign stateis“restricted”tosuitsinvolving 18 Phaneuf v.RepublicofIndon. , 488U.S.428,434(1989)(“Wethinkthat 11

Tachiona v.Mugabe sua relationsadditionallycounselinfavor sponte sua sponte .

Liuv.RepublicofChina , 169F.Supp.2d . 10 , 106F.3d302, 94-1310,at , United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Defendants intheinstantcase,byengaginginternational lawviolations,actedbeyondtheirauthorityand of aforeignstateonlyiftheyareperformingofficialacts withintheirlegalauthority.Theycontendthatthe is inapplicablebecausetheActconfersjurisdictiononsovereignentitiesandappliesto The Plaintiffsdonotcontendthatanystatutoryexceptionapplieshere.Rather,theytheFSIA Ferdinand E.MarcosHumanRightsLitig.(“Trajanov. U.S.C. §§1330,1602-11(2002).IftheFSIAapplies,it“trumps”ATCA. FSIA providesthatforeignsovereignsareimmunefromsuitunlessanenumeratedexceptionapplies.28 the executivebranchtojudicialbranch.” role intheforeignstateimmunityprocess,andtransferred“thedeterminationofsovereignfrom arising frompublicorgovernmentalacts,removedtheStateDepartment’sformerexclusiveandpreemptive the courts. U.S. practiceintoconformitywithmanyothernationswholeftsovereignimmunitydecisionsexclusively to Immunities Act,whichwasintendedtoadopt“comprehensiverulesgoverningsovereignimmunity”bringing State Departmentchosenottointervene. without objectiverulesoflawtoapplyincaseswheretheforeignstatedidnotrequestimmunity,or on theExecutiveBranch,andoftenyieldedinconsistentoutcomes. immunity” werefrequentlyissuedonthebasisofforeigngovernment’spoliticalanddiplomaticpressures not basedonconsistentorcoherentstandards. Note, at392(1987).Inpractice,however,theStateDepartment’simmunitydeterminationsoftenwere 259, 271(S.D.N.Y.2001);Restatement(Third)ofForeignRelationsLaw,PartIV,Chap.5Introductory Although theATCAandTVPAconferjurisdictionrightsofactionasdiscussedabove, This growingdissatisfactionwiththeTateLettermotivatedpassageofForeignSovereign Mugabe , 169F.Supp.2dat272.Congressstrictlylimitedforeignstates’immunitytoactions Id .; Restatement,at393. Id.

Mugabe 19 , 169F.Supp.2dat272.These“suggestionsof Id. ”), 978F.2d493,497(9thCir.1992). Moreover,thecourtswereleft In reEstateof individual officials United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 516 (D.D.C.1987)(diplomatic immunitygiventomilitaryattacheoftheIsraeli Embassy). Canada totheOrganization ofAmericanStates); (diplomatic immunitygiven totheAlternativeRepresentativeofCanadaat Permanent Missionof and laterCounselorofthe JordanianEmbassy); Tabion v.FarisMufti been reservedtothoseofacknowledgeddiplomatic rank, performingdiplomaticfunctions”); 472 F.Supp.490,506(D.N.J.1978)(“fullprivileges andimmunitiesofdiplomaticstatushavetraditionally foreign governmentsthatarenotintheUnitedStates ondiplomaticmissions. suit). 1329 (11th General ofthePhilippinesafterhewassubpoenaed); Philippines v.Marcos Department madewhenlegalactionswerealreadyongoing. Department ofStateforcertification).Courts,however, haverecognizeddiplomaticstatusbytheState advisor” didnotentitlehimtodiplomaticimmunitybecausehehasbeensubmittedtheUnitedStates Foutanga DitBabaniSissoko, (2d meet athresholdrequirementfordiplomaticimmunity. http://www.state.gov/s/cpr/rls/dpl/2002/12733.htm (lastvisitedMarch27,2003).Thus,Defendantsfail to and Fall/Summer2002, of Defendants asdiplomaticagentsfor Diplomatic RelationsandOptionalProtocolonDisputes).HeretheStateDepartmentdidnotcertify the to thiscase. scope oftheirauthority. Ninth CircuithasheldthattheActappliestoforeignofficialsactinginanofficialcapacityforactswithin the 28 U.S.C.§1603(b).AlthoughtheFSIAdoesnotonitsfaceexplicitlyapplytoindividualofficials, instrumentality” asanyentity: agency orinstrumentalityofaforeignstate.”28U.S.C.§1603(a).FSIAdefinessuch“agency A. the DefendantsarenotimmunefromsuitunderFSIA. are thusnotentitledtoimmunityundertheFSIA. interestlettertothisCourt.U.S.StateDepartmentOfficeofProtocol,DiplomaticListforWinter/Spring Cir.1984)(diplomaticimmunityispremiseduponrecognitionbythereceivingstate); This Courtisnotawareofanycasesthathavegranted diplomaticimmunitytolocalofficialsfrom 12 The FSIAconfersimmunityuponforeignstates.A“foreignstate”undertheActincludes“an Application ofFSIAtoIndividualOfficials Noneofthe Cir.1984)(SaudiPrinceandhisfamilyobtaineddiplomatic statusafterthecommencementof See 22U.S.C.§ any thirdcountry. in section1332(c)and(d)ofthistitle,norcreatedunderthelaws (3) whichisneitheracitizenofStatetheUnitedStatesasdefined a foreignstateorpoliticalsubdivisionthereof,and or amajorityofwhosesharesotherownershipinterestisownedby (2) whichisanorganofaforeignstateorpoliticalsubdivisionthereof, (1) whichisaseparatelegalperson,corporateorotherwise,and , 73F.3d535,536(4th partieshaveraisedtheissueofdiplomaticimmunityanditappearstobeinapplicable , 665F.Supp.793,799(N.D.Cal.1987)(diplomatic statusconferredonSolicitor available at Chuidian v.PhilippineNat’lBank 254a-e(theDiplomaticRelationsActimplementingtheViennaConventionon 995F.Supp.1469,1470(S.D.Fla.1997)(defendant’sstatusas“special thePRC,nordidStateDepartmentindicateassuchinitsstatement http://www.state.gov/s/cpr/rls/dpl/2002/11030.htm and Cir.1996)(diplomaticimmunity giventoFirstSecretary Logan v.Dupuis, 12 Fatimeh AliAidiv.Amos Yaron Forthereasonsstatedbelow,Courtconcludesthat 20 Abdulaziz v.Metro.DadeCounty See UnitedStatesv.Lumumba Republic ofPhilippinesbyCent.Bank , 912F.2d1095,1103,1106-07(9thCir. 990 F.Supp.26,26(D.D.C. 1997) See UnitedStatesv.Enger, , 672F.Supp.516, , 741F.2d12,15 , 741F.2d1328, United Statesv. see also United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 the basisofstateliabilityby attribution,isnotsufficienttoclothetheofficialwith sovereignimmunity. (citation omitted).Themere factthatactswereconductedundercoloroflaw or authority,whichmayform is notdoingthebusinesswhich thesovereignhasempoweredhimtodo.” statute, hisactionsbeyondthoselimitationsareconsidered individualandnotsovereignactions.Theofficer Tribal Court authority,” heorsheloseshis/herimmunity. of hisauthority.” Hilao II out thechallengedpractices,thereisaquestionwhethertheiractswerevalidlyauthorized. assumed thatDefendantsLiuandXiaactedintheirofficial,asopposedtopersonal,capacitiescarrying with thesovereigntyorpolicymakingpower”ofPRC. the actofstatedoctrine,anadversejudgmentmight,dependingonscopereliefgranted,“interfere Defendants, nottheirpersonaldecisions. challenging “agovernmentpolicy[ofrepressionandmistreatmentofFalunGong]implementedby”the suggest DefendantsLiuandXiawereactingintheirofficialcapacitiessincethePlaintiffsareeffect the official.” against theofficialwouldhaveeffectofinterferingwithsovereigntyforeignstatethatemploys 1144 (9thCir.2002)(quoting and thus“‘thepracticalequivalentofasuitagainstthesovereigndirectly.’” action againsttheforeignofficialis“merelyadisguisednationthatheorsherepresents” 969, 974(D.Haw.1998)(accord).Todeterminetheanswer,NinthCircuitconsideredwhetheran 115 F.3d10201028(D.C.Cir.1997)(personalactionnotimmune); official.” accomplish indirectlywhat[FISA]barredthemfromdoingdirectly.” capacities .wouldamounttoablanketabrogationofforeignsovereignimmunitybyallowinglitigants 1990). Otherwise,“toallowunrestrictedsuitsagainstindividualforeignofficialsactingintheirofficial However, thecasesatbarinvolveanadditionallayerofcomplexitynotextantin Often thecriticalquestioniswhether“theofficerpurportstoactasanindividualandnot requireanadditionalinquiryintowhetherthedefendant officialactedwithinor“outsidethescope Chuidian Park , 806F.2d853,859(9thCir.1986)).Moreover,“[w]here theofficer’spowersarelimitedby Hilao II, , 313F.3dat1144(citing , 912F.2dat1106. 25 F.3dat1472.Ifanofficialacts“completelyoutside hisgovernmental Chuidian, See e.g.,Jungquistv.SheikhSultanBinKhalifaAlNahyan Park 912 F.2dat1101).TheCourtmustalsoask“whetheranaction Chuidian, Hilao II , 313F.3dat1144.Asdiscussed 21 , 25F.3dat1472).Ordinarily,thesefactorswould 912 F.2dat1106(citing Id . Id. Doe v.Bolkiah at1102. Chuidian Park v.Shin UnitedStatesv.Yakima infra , 912F.2dat1106 , 74F.Supp.2d PartVIregarding Park , 313F.3d1138, Chuidian . Evenifitis Cf. and , United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 S. Rep.No.102-249,at3 (emphasisadded). authority orundercolorof lawofanyforeign the mention ismadeineitherreport toimmunizeallsittingofficials. 367, intended diplomatic andheadofstateimmunityforindividuals. have official of sitting DeputyChiefofNational under Marcos’ actionswere“inviolationofexistinglaw.” international law,theconstitution,andlawofPhilippines. pursuant tohisownauthority.”25F.3dat1471.Accordingthecomplaint,allegedactionsviolated charging himwitharrests,tortureandmurdersbecausehisactionswere“takenwithoutofficialmandate FSIA. official mandateand,notactsofanagentorinstrumentalityaforeignstatewithinthemeaning on herownauthority,nottheauthorityofRepublicPhilippines.Heractswerewithinany and murderedbypolicemilitarypersonnel.ThecourtreasonedthatMarcos-Manotocadmittedacting military intelligence,wasnotimmunefromsuitbroughtbythemotherofavictimwhoallegedlytortured Marcos-Manotoc, whoasNationalChairmanoftheKabataangBaranggaycontrolledpoliceand Commission onGoodGovernment. his personalmotivation,actionwaswithin“statutorymandate”asamemberofthePresidential held thattheofficialwasentitledtosovereignimmunityunderFSIA,becauseregardlessofpropriety official instructedthePhilippineNationalBanktodishonoraletterofcreditissuedplaintiff.Thecourt not apply. FSIA); Restatement§453.Iftheofficialdoesnotact“withinan Phaneuf theactofstatedoctrine,nothinginexpresslanguage oftheATCA,TVPAorFSIArenderssuchan TVPA“istoprovideaFederal causeofactionagainst at5(1991)(TVPAdoesnotoverridethedoctrines ofdiplomaticandheadstateimmunity).No beenonsuitsagainstformerofficials,theSenateand theHouseonlyexpressedanintenttopreserve theFSIA. automaticallyimmune.Indeed,thelegislativehistory oftheTVPAsuggeststhatwhilefocusmay Trajano 13 Similarly, in Applying In tooverridetraditionalimmunityenjoyedbyforeigndiplomats andheadsofstate);H.R.Rep.No.102- , 106F.3dat308(actualauthoritynecessarytoestablish“commercialactivity”exception Thefactthattheofficialattimeofsuitisasitting officialdoesnotrendertheimmune Chuidian Hilao , 978F.2dat498. See

Chuidian II , 25F.3dat1472n.8(emphasisadded). Hilao II , abusinessownersuedanofficialofthePhilippinegovernmentafterdefendant Cabiriv.Assasie-Gyimah , theNinthCircuitin , theNinthCircuitheldthatPresidentMarcoswasnotimmunefromsuit SecurityforGhana).While,asnotedbelow,thatfact informstheapplicability Chuidian nation,subjectsanyindividual totortureorextrajudicialkilling.” , 912F.2dat1106-07. Trajano , 921F.Supp.1189,1198(S.D.N.Y.1996)(defendant was Id. 22 See at1472(quotationsomitted).Sincehisacts“were held thatPresidentMarcos’daughter,Imee S.Rep.No. 13 Id. any AsnotedintheSenateReport, thepurposeof ThePhilippinegovernmentconfirmedthat official individualwho,underactual orapparent 102-249,at8-9(1991)(TVPAnot mandate,”FSIAimmunitydoes United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 time ofTrajano’smurder. 978F.2dat498n.10. “not ontheauthorityofRepublicPhilippines.” 978F.2dat498. denying Marcos-ManotocimmunityundertheFSIA wasthatsheadmittedactingonherownauthority, head ofthestate,boundbylawsthatappliedtohim.” 862 F.2d1355,1362(9thCir.1988)( Philippines.” 25F.2dat1471.Quotingfromitsearlierdecisionin FSIA immunitybecausehisactionswerenot“officialactspursuanttoauthorityasPresidentofthe investigation, andtoseekaninjunctionifthebankrefusedcomply. entitled toinvestigatepossiblefraudulenttransfers,hadthepowerpreventpaymentinaidofhis 1107. ThecourtnotedthatasamemberoftheCommission,underPhilippineExecutiveOrder,hewas governing hispowersasamemberofthePresidentialCommissiononGoodGovernment.912F.2dat immunity analysis,ismeasuredbythedomesticlawofforeignstate,notinternationallaw. including thatoftheNinthCircuit,establishesofficial’sscopeauthorityforpurposesFSIA act wouldbydefinitionbebeyondthescopeofofficial’sproperauthority.However,caselaw, international lawasestablishedbyeither B. the FSIA. they canbedeemedtohaveactedasanagencyorinstrumentalityofthePeople’sRepublicChinaunder actions were“withinthescopeofhisauthority”andthusimmuneunderFSIA). Trajano within themeaningofFSIA. not takenwithinanyofficialmandate,”theywereactsofanagencyorinstrumentalityaforeignstate 14 In Both the Whether ScopeofAuthorityisMeasuredbyInternationalorForeignSovereign’sLaw The questionhereiswhetherDefendantsLiuandXiaactedwithintheirscopeofauthoritysuchthat and Indeed,Marcos-Manotoc claimedshewasnotamemberofthegovernment or themilitaryat Chuidian, Chuidian Liu and theissuewaswhetherindividualdefendantactedwithinhis“statutorymandate” , remandedcasetodistrictcourtdeterminewhetherindividualdefendant’s Xia PlaintiffscontendthatFSIAdoesnotapplytoofficialswhoviolate Id. at1472;s en banc jus cogens ee alsoPhaneuf ), thecourtnotedthatMarcos“wasnotstate,but the normsorcustomaryinternationallawsinceanysuch 23 Id. , 106F.3dat306(NinthCircuit,citing at1471.In Republic ofthePhilippinesv.Marcos Id. In 14 Trajano

Hilao II , thepivotalfindingin , Marcoswasdenied , United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 for purposesoftheFSIA. international human Trust Bank immune undertheFSIA. fell such actsarenotprohibitedbythelawsofGhana.” 921F.Supp.at1198.Sincetheallegedactsoftorture because defendantdidnot Ghanian authorized. authority.” Thecourtnotedthat acts was (D. neither F. (official’s activitiesnot furtherance she violatedinternationallaw–thebasisforsubstantivecauseofactionimmunitycouldnotbe 668, 671(D.C.Cir.1996).Ifanofficial’simmunityturnedontheultimatedeterminationofwhetherhe or prevent ultimateliability,buttoaffordimmunityfromsuit. FSIA anditsunderlyingpolicies.First,oneofthesignificantpurposessovereignimmunityisnotonly to international lawisnotsupportedbycurrentcaselaw. Hence, thecontentionthatscopeofauthoritydeterminativeFSIAimmunityismeasuredby denied FSIAimmunity norms ofinternationallaw.AccordingtothePlaintiffs’theoryherein,defendantsshouldhavebeen since theactsoftortureandmurderattributabletoMarcoshisdaughterclearlyviolated been noneedforthecourtsin of theforeignstate,notinternationallaw. and pursuanttoan“officialmandate”turnedonanalysisoftheofficial’spowersunderdomesticlaw Supp.2d969(GovernmentofBruneididnotempowerdefendanttorunallegedprostitutionringorharem). “beyondthescopeofhisauthorityasDeputy Director ofNationalSecurityGhana,”hewasnot Mass.1995),citedbythePlaintiffs,districtcourt held thattheformerMinisterofDefenseGuatemala “exceedanythingthatmightbeconsideredtohave been lawfullywithinthescopeofGramajo’sofficial notimmuneunderFSIAfromsuitallegingtorture,arbitrary detentionsandexecutions,becausethealleged , 928F.Supp.241,243(E.D.N.Y.1996)cited erroneouslyassumedthat FSIA immunityhasno rightsviolations.Itcitesno convincingauthorityforthisproposition.Thesecase simplydonotestablish

Hilao 16 15 Moreover, thereareseveralreasonswhyPlaintiffs’theorywouldappeartobeinconsistentwiththe In eachofthesecases,thequestionwhetherofficialactedwithinscopehisauthority NavyandDeputyChiefofNationalSecuritywasnot immunefromsuitunderFSIAforallegedtorture, Thecasescitedbythe Othercourtsareinaccord. oftheinterestssovereignbutapersonalandprivateaction); lawdisplacestheforeignsovereign’s lawinassessingthescopeofdefendant official’sauthority Id.

II at176n.10.In nor Trajano personalorprivatebutundertakenonlyonbehalfofgovernmentalbank); per se Id. claimtheallegedactsfellwithinscopeofhisauthority; hedid“notarguethat supportthePlaintiffs’argument.In

withoutregardtoPhilippinelaw.ButtheNinthCircuitdidnotsohold. Granville GoldTrustSwitzerland Trajano thegovernmentofGuatemaladidnotallegethat actionswere“officially” Cabiri Liu and and , 15 alsocitedbyPlaintiffs,thedistrictcourtheldcommander inthe Indeed,ifthePlaintiffshereinwerecorrect,therewouldhave See Xia Hilao

Plaintiffsareinapposite.Forthereasonsdiscussedabove, Jungquist

II toaddressthescopeofauthorityunderPhilippinelaw 24 16 applicationtoclaimsunder theATCAandTVPAfor byPlaintiffsisalsoinapposite.Thecourtin See El-Fadlv.Cent.BankofJordan , 115F.3dat1028(SheikhSultan’sactnotin Xuncax v.Comm.DelFullimento/InterChange v.Gramajo El-Fadl , 886F.Supp.162,176 , 75F.3dat671 jus cogens Bolkiah , 75F.3d Granville , 74 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 J. Int’lL.&Bus.425(2000). authority for assassinationofChileandissidentpoliticalleader intheUnitedStates). v. allows officials actingwithintheirofficialcapacitiesmaynot besued under theirauthorityfromviolatingtherightsofcitizens andvisitors. Chinese law,thoseinDefendants’positionshaveresponsibility topreventpoliceandothersecurityforces 24. Defendants’conductisnotauthorizedbythedomesticlawofChina. physical abuseordetentionwithoutdueprocessinimplementingitscrackdownonFalunGong. abuse andtortureofdetainees.BerringAff.¶¶3-8,9-12.Moreover,thePRC’slawsdonotauthorize Chinese constitutionandcriminalprocedurelawswhichspecificallyprohibitarbitrarydetention,physical the conductallegedherein. submit theAffidavitofProfessorRobertC.Berring(“BerringAff.”)toestablishthatChineselawprohibits carrying outand/orpermittingthehumanrightsviolationsallegedinComplaints.The C. indirectly whattheActbarredthemfromdoingdirectly”under official wouldamounttoan“abrogationofforeignsovereignimmunitybyallowinglitigantsaccomplish against thesovereigndirectly.” authority providedunderthesovereign’slaw,asuitagainstofficialis“practicalequivalentof in FSIA,noneofwhichapplyhere.Whereanofficialactshiscapacitywithinthescope immune irrespectiveofthemagnitudehumanrightsviolationsunlessoneexceptionsenumerated 965 F.2d699,717-718(9thCir.1992).Agenciesandinstrumentalitiesoftheforeignsovereignare rights lawdonotvitiateFSIAimmunityofaforeignsovereign. entitlement toimmunityfromsuit.” resolved withoutadjudicatingthemeritsofcase.Thiswould“frustratesignificanceandbenefit RepublicofChile suchsuits 18 17 The issuetheniswhetherDefendantsLiuandXiaactedwithinthescopeoftheirauthorityin Whether DefendantsActedWithintheScopeofTheirAuthorityUnderChineseLaw Second, theNinthCircuithasheldthatevenviolationof onChineselaw. Berringis Thisisnottosuggestthataforeignsovereigntyand itsagenciesandinstrumentalitiesincluding e.g. InterimDean,Professorof Law,andHeadLibrarianatBoaltHall,isarecognized , where 488F.Supp.665,672(D.D.C.1980)(FSIAnotbar toactionagainstChileanofficials See 18 theinjuryoccurs“withinUnitedStates.”28U.S.C. §1605; Inparticular,ProfessorBerringdescribesinhisaffidavittheprovisionsof e.g. Chuidian , RobertC.Berring, Id. at671(quotationsomitted). , 912F.2dat1101-02.Thus,permittingsuitagainstsuchan 25 Chinese forinternationalhumanrightsviolations.FSIA Law,TradeandtheNew Century Siderman Siderman deBlakev.RepublicofArg. jus cogens Id. ¶¶ 15-21; . 17 Id.

normsofinternationalhuman Id. ¶25.Additionally,under at1102. Liu Compl.¶34. Liu see Plaintiffs alsoLetelier Id. , 20Nw. ¶¶22- , United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 own citizens.”965F.2dat 717. states believeitiswrong,all thatengageintorturedenyit,and Likewise, virtually has recognizedtheallegedhumanrightsviolationsas partofthegovernmentPRC’snationalpolicy. 1999. Compl. ¶15. by thehighestlevelsofnationalgovernmentChina forimplementationatallgovernmentallevels.” governmentally mandatedpolicyofrepressionFalunGongpractitionersthatwasadoptedandimposed Liu Complaint: to repressandpunishmemberssupportersoftheFalunGongmovement.Asallegedin that theallegedconductofDefendantsLiuandXiaispartalargercampaignbynationalgovernment Statement oftheGov’tP.R.C.on“FalunGong”UnwarrantedLawsuits,at3. “[p]rohibition oftorturehasalwaysbeenaconsistentpositionthePeople’sRepublicChina.” circumstances orforwhateverreason.” “[i]t isstrictlyforbiddentousetortureinaprison.Nooneeverpermittedprisonersunderany degrading treatmentorpunishmentisstrictlyprohibited. 155, U.N.Doc.CAT/C39/Add.2(2000).Thereportalsostatedthattortureandothercruel,inhumanor Periodic ReportsofStatesPartiesDuein1997:China physical violenceistoleratedorcondonedinthetreatmentofdetainedandarrestedpersons. most recentreporttotheUnitedNationsCommitteeAgainstTorture,PRCstatedthatnoformof Compl.¶2. Id nogovernmentpublicly asserts arighttotortureitscitizens.630F.2d876, 884(2dCir.1980). 19 On theotherhand,ComplaintsandmaterialssubmittedinsupportofPlaintiffs’motionsestablish The publicpronouncementofthePRCisconsistentwithProfessorBerring’sconclusions.Inits . ¶18. theNinthCircuitnotedin Suchpronouncementsarehardlysurprising.Asthe SecondCircuitobservedin

It allegesthattheNationalGovernmentcommenced thenationalpolicyofrepressionin

In itscondemnationoftherepressionFalunGong movement,theStateDepartment

practice ofviolations. campaign againstFalunGongpractitioners,markedbyapatternand Republic ofChina,haveengagedinawidespreadorsystematic and othersecurityforcesinBeijing,throughoutthePeople’s of anationwidecrackdownagainstFalunGongpractitioners.Police The actsallegedhereinagainstPlaintiffswerecarriedoutinthecontext The Xia Complaintlikewiseallegesthattheactscomplainedofwerepart“the Siderman Id. ¶29.InthePRC’slettertothisCourt,itlikewisestatedthat “thatstatesengagein 26 Id. , U.N.Comm.AgainstTorture,24th ¶158.Furthermore,asstatedinthereport, nostateclaimsasovereign righttotortureits officialtorturecannotbedoubted, butall 19 Filartiga Third Sess.,at¶ Liu v.Pena

Xia , United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 conduct.” his officialorrepresentative characterandissubjectedinhispersontotheconsequences ofhisindividual its sovereignorgovernmental capacity.”).Thus,anofficialenforcingunconstitutional actis“strippedof unconstitutional act.isaproceedingwithouttheauthority of,andonewhichdoesnotaffect,thestatein Cf. ExparteYoung conferred inform[]thegrantislackingsubstance becauseofitsconstitutionalinvalidity.” official commitsanunconstitutionalact,heorshealso actsbeyondhispowers.Although“powerhasbeen 337 U.S.at689.Inthatinstance,hisactionswere limited bystatute,hisactionsbeyondthoselimitationsareconsideredindividualandnotsovereignactions.” immunity. governmental actionscouldbedeemedtosuitsagainsttheUnitedStatesandthusbarredbysovereign both ofwhichinvolvedthequestionwhethersuitsbroughtagainstfederalofficialstoenjoincertain Corp the sovereignitself.912F.2dat1106. American lawwhichdrawsadistinctionbetweensuitagainstsovereign’semployeeand the scopeofhisgovernmentalauthority,courtin ATCA andTVPAsuggeststhatsuchactsarenotimmunizedbytheFSIA. examination oftheNinthCircuit’sanalysisin official’s scopeofauthorityundertheFSIA.Thisappearstobeanissuefirstimpression.Aclose the nationbutwhichareauthorizedbycovertunofficialpolicyofstatemaybedeemedtowithin belies thegovernment’sdisclaimer. abuse, whichmustbetakenastrueinthecontextofdefendants’default,evidencesanationalpolicythat effort tocontainorrepresstheFalunGong,Plaintiffs’allegationsandevidenceofwidespreadsystemic practitioners.”). Government oftheP.R.C.andhascalleduponittorespectrightsallitscitizens,includingFalunGong See LettertoMcCallum,at2-3(“TheUnitedStateshasrepeatedlymadetheseconcernsknownthe ., 337U.S.682(1949),and In holdingthatanofficialsharessovereignimmunitywiththeforeigngovernmentwhenactingwithin The legalquestionpresentedisthereforewhetheractsbyanofficialwhichviolatethelawsof Larson Id . at160.

WhilethePRCmaypubliclydenyallegationsofhumanrightsviolationsinregardtoits heldthatevenwhentheofficialactsundercoloroflaw,whereofficial’spowers“are , 209U.S.123,159(1908)(“theuseofthename thestatetoenforcean United Statesv.YakimaTribalCourt Chuidian Chuidian cited ultra vires Chuidian 27 andthepolicyconsiderationswhichunderlie Larson v.DomesticandForeignCommerce relieduponananalogytoprinciplesin hisauthority. , 806F.2d853(9thCir.1986), Id. Moreover,whenafederal Id. at690. United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 suits onlyagainstindividuals. S.Rep.No.102-249,at7. consonant. available defense”toasuitagainstindividualofficials. for foreignstategovernmentalagencies,itassumesthat “sovereignimmunitywouldnotgenerallybean prohibited actsinorderforaclaimtolie. 1992 U.S.C.C.A.N.84,85-86.TVPAspecificallycontemplates“somegovernmentalinvolvement”inthe aliens foracts“undertakenundercolorofofficialauthority.”H.R.Rep.No.102-367,at3-4 tolerate tortureoftheircitizens,”thepurposeTVPAistoprovidearemedyforU.S.citizensand “[d]espite universalcondemnationoftheseabuses,manytheworld’sgovernmentsstillengageinor officials toliabilityregardlessofwhethertheiractsweresecretlycondemnedbythestate.Recognizingthat note 2(a).ThelegislativehistoryoftheTVPAindicatesthatCongressintendedtosubjectindividual suit anddamagesliabilityevenifheorsheactedunderauthorityoftheforeignnation.28U.S.C.§1350 note §2(a).UndertheplainwordingofTVPA,anofficialwhoengagedintorturemaybesubjectto nation” subjectsanindividualtotortureshallbeliablefordamagesthatindividual.28U.S.C.§1350 TVPA providesthatanindividualwho“underactualorapparentauthority,coloroflaw,anyforeign omitted). preclude litigationunder§1350for‘tort[s].committedinviolationofthelawnations’”)(citation all involveactspracticed,encouragedorcondonedbystates,defendant’sargumentwouldineffect Suarez-Mason apply toacts“whichexceedthe official actedwithinhis immunity. Thus,thekeyinlineofcasesreliedupon Yakima TribalCourt 20 This interpretationoftheFSIAisconsistentwithCongressionalpolicyembodiedinTVPA.The The NinthCircuitsubsequentlyrefined TheSenateReportlikewise statesthattheTVPAwasnotintendedtooverride theFSIA,permitting Id. at4(theTVPAwould“enhancetheremedyalready availableundersection1350. , 672F.Supp.1531,1546(N.D.Cal.1987)(“sinceviolationsofthelawnationsvirtually . Thecourtreaffirmed,however,that legally valid lawful grantofauthority. boundariesofadefendant’sauthority”)(emphasisadded); Id. at5.WhileTVPAwasintendedtopreserveFSIA immunity Larson 28 Id. ’s analysisofstatutoryandregulatoryviolationsin Cf. Cabiri 20 Chuidian Moreover,theTVPAandATCAwereseenas ultra vires , 921F.Supp.at1197(FSIAdoesnot inconstruingtheFSIAiswhether actionsarenotsubjecttosovereign reprinted in Forti v. United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 PRC hasmadenosuchadmission. an “admit[ted] agency context, thejusticiabilityconcernsareexaminedunderactofstatedoctrine. justiciable inlightoftheirpotentialimplicationsforforeignrelationsandseparationpowers.Inthis Defendants LiuandXiaundertheATCATVPA,thisCourtmustaddresswhetherthesecasesare jurisdiction andthattheyarenotstatutorilybarredundertheFSIAfromassertingclaimsagainst China withinthemeaningofFSIA,andsovereignimmunitythereunderdoesnotlie. law. Accordingly,theirallegedactsarenotofanagencyorinstrumentalitythePeople’sRepublic of establish thattheallegedconductforwhichDefendantsareresponsiblewereinconsistentwithChinese acted undertoavalidgrantofauthorityforpurposestheFSIA.TheauthoritiespresentedbyPlaintiffs and assertsthatsuchviolationsareinfactprohibitedbyChineselaw,Defendantscannotclaimtohave but publiclydisclaimedtheallegedhumanrightsviolationscausedorpermittedbyDefendantsLiuandXia valid andconstitutionalgrantofauthority.Where,ashere,thePRCappearstohavecovertlyauthorized official obtainssovereignimmunityasanagencyorinstrumentalityofthestateonlyifhesheactsundera D. be coveredbysection1350”). [C]laims basedontortureorsummaryexecutionsdonotexhaustthelistofactionsthatmayappropriately admissionwouldimplythe officialactedunderavalidgrantofauthority.As notedabove,however,the ofaforeignstate.TheReport assumesthattheFSIAimmunitywouldextendto anindividualifthestate 21 Having determinedthePlaintiffsinboth Hence, undertheFSIAasinterpretedby FSIA SovereignImmunityNotApplicabletoDefendantsLiuandXia TheSenateReportalsosuggests anadditionalbasisforestablishing someknowledgeorauthorization ofrelevantacts.”S.Rep.No.102-249,at8. Presumably,such VI. ACT OFSTATEDOCTRINE Chuidian Liu 29 and andconsistentwithCongressionalpolicy,an Xia caseshaveestablishedthisCourt’s anindividualofficialactsas an 21 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Venezuelan militarycommander–whosegovernmentwaslaterrecognizedbytheU.S.unlawfully Hernandez A. The Court’sclassicstatementoftheactstatedoctrinewasarticulatedin Background ontheActofStateDoctrine , 168U.S.250(1887).In Underhill , anAmericancitizenfiledadamagesactionallegingthat 30 Underhill v. United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 implement particularkinds ofdecisionsintheareainternationalrelations.” enjoined byaseparationof powers;it“concernsthecompetencyofdissimilar institutions tomakeand relations. the competencyofjudiciarytomakeandimplement certaindecisionsintheareaofinternational doctrine nonethelesshad“constitutionalunderpinnings” arisingfromseparationofpowersconcernsabout Id In thiscontext,the aggression, Cubanationalizedproperty(sugar)inwhichAmericanationalshadaninterest. Id. principle ofcustomaryinternationallawaftertheCubangovernmenttookpropertywithinitsownterritory. 376 U.S.398(1964). relations betweengovernmentsandvexthepeaceofnations.’”). reexamined andperhapscondemnedbythecourtsofanotherwouldverycertainly‘imperilamicable the assigneeoforiginalowner,declaring,“TopermitvalidityactsonesovereignStatetobe seized hidesthatwerethensoldtoaTexascompany,theCourtdeclinedadjudicatecasebroughtby Id deeds ofthisVenezuelanofficial,declaring: assaulted, coercedanddetainedhiminVenezuela. . at428. . at252. InresponsetoaU.S.reductioninCuba’ssugarquota,whichCubacharacterizedasanactofpolitical The Courtnotedthatwhiletheactofstatedoctrinewas notmandatedbytheConstitution, The leadingmoderncaseontheactofstatedoctrineis Id See also . at423.Thedoctrinearisesoutofthebasicrelationships betweenbranchesofgovernment violates customaryinternationallaw. controlling legalprinciples,eveniftheComplaintallegesthattaking the absenceofatreatyorotherunambiguousagreementregarding government, extantandrecognizedbythiscountryatthetimeofsuit,in of atakingpropertywithinitsownterritorybyforeignsovereign [W]e decideonlythattheJudicialBranchwillnotexaminevalidity between themselves. obtained throughthemeansopentobeavailedbysovereignpowersas territory. Redressofgrievancesbyreasonsuchactsmustbe judgment ontheactsofgovernmentanotherdonewithinitsown other sovereignState,andthecourtsofonecountrywillnotsitin Every sovereignStateisboundtorespecttheindependenceofevery Sabbatino

Oetjen v.Cent.LeatherCo. In Sabbatino Court declinedtoadoptabroadandinflexiblerule,butratherheld: , theplaintiffchallengedtakingofpropertyunderacontroversial , 38S.Ct.309,311(1918)(afteraMexicangeneral Id. 31 The Underhill Banco NacionaldeCubav.Sabbatino Courtrefusedtoinquireintothe Id. It“expressesthestrong Id . at402-403. , United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 that balance, those concerns,however,isthepoweranddutyofcourttoexerciseitsjudicialfunctions.Inassessing foreign statesandtheseparationofpowersinadministeringaffairsthisnation.Balancedagainst Machain foreign actsofstate.”376U.S.at423(citing state doctrine.doesnotirrevocablyremovefromthejudiciarycapacitytoreviewvalidityof case orcontroversywhichtouchesforeignrelationsliesbeyondjudicialcognizance,’”andthat“theactof Oetjen government iscommittedbytheConstitutiontoExecutiveandLegislative.departments’(citing 705 F.2d1030,1046(9thCir.1983). “foreign counterpart”tothepoliticalquestiondoctrine. the legalityofactsaforeignstateoritsagents.Theactdoctrinehasbeenreferredtoas mandated. Rather,itconstitutesaprudentiallimitationupontheexerciseofcourt’spowertoadjudicate as awholeintheinternationalsphere.” may hinderratherthanfurtherthiscountry’spursuitofgoalsbothforitselfandthecommunitynations sense oftheJudicialBranchthatitsengagementintaskpassingonvalidityforeignactsstate , 38S.Ct.at311),theCourtnonethelessobservedthat“itcannotofcoursebethought‘every In sum,theactofstatedoctrineencompassestworelatedconcerns:respectingsovereignty While , supra Sabbatino Sabbatino , 2003WL21264256at*49n.7. perpetrated thechallengedactofstateisnolongerin existence,asin relevant considerationsmayalsobeshiftedifthegovernment which justification forexclusivityinthepoliticalbranches.The balanceof the implicationsofanissueareforourforeignrelations, theweaker much moresharplyonnationalnervesthandoothers; thelessimportant justice. Itisalsoevidentthatsomeaspectsofinternational lawtouch principle notinconsistentwiththenationalinterestor withinternational circumstances offactratherthanonthesensitivetask ofestablishinga the courtscanthenfocusonapplicationofanagreed principleto appropriate itisforthejudiciarytorenderdecisionsregardingit,since consensus concerningaparticularareaofinternationallaw,themore It shouldbeapparentthatthegreaterdegreeofcodificationor announced athree-parttestfordeterminingwhentoapplytheactofstatedoctrine: acknowledgedtheclassicnotionthat‘[t]heconductofforeignrelationsour Id. Thedoctrineisneitherjurisdictionalnorconstitutionally Baker v.Carr 32 Northrop Corp.v.McDonnellDouglas , 369U.S.186,211(1962)). See Alvarez- , United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 of aparticularcontroversy. situations inquiry of theactsNaziofficials.” The . doctrine. TheStateDepartment’slegaladvisorthen wrote property 72 (2d B. Court. Defendants havedefaulted,theissueisnotraisedbyeitherparty.Instead,it act ofstatedoctrinemayberaised 682, 694-95(1976)).However,wherethereisa“potentialforembarrassingtheExecutiveBranch,” doctrine. this realmofitsapplication.” of establishingtherulelawamongnationsarebestservedbymaintainingintactactstatedoctrine in expropriation ofthiskindmaybe,weconcludethatboththenationalinterestandprogresstowardgoal concluded, “[h]oweveroffensivetothepublicpolicyofthiscountryanditsconstituentStatesan should theCourtadjudicatevalidityofexpropriationdecree. bearing onthelitigation,CourtnoteddangerofinterferingandembarrassingExecutiveBranch U.S. at429-30.AlthoughtheStateDepartmentdeclinedtomakeanystatementonewayorother international consensusuponthelimitationsonstate’spowertoexpropriatepropertyofaliens.376 decree oftheGovernmentCubaexpropriatingcertainproperty.TheCourtnotedthattherewasno 1989) foreign statewasactinginthepublicinterest.” 376 U.S.at428.TheNinthCircuithasfurtherheldthatthecourtmustadditionallyconsider“whether .torelieveAmericanscourts fromanyrestraintupontheexerciseoftheirjurisdiction topassuponthevalidity (2dCir.1949),whichinvolvedsuitsbyaJewish U.S. residentandformerGermancitizentorecover Cir.1947)and . intotheplaintiff’sallegations. 210F.2d375(2dCir.1954).Aso-called“Bernstein letter”refersto 22 seizedbytheNazigovernment.TheSecondCircuit initially dismissedthecasesunderactofstate Whether Defendants’ConductConstitutedActs ofState Normally, theburdenofprovingactsstaterestsonpartyassertingapplicability In inwhichtheStateDepartment declaresthattheExecutiveBranchdoesnotobject totheadjudication The Liu, Sabbatino Bernstein 892 F.2dat1432 result, bemeasurablyaltered. the Bernsteincase, Bernstein v.N.V.Nederlansche-AmerikaansheStomvaart-Maatschappij , theCourtheldthatactofstatedoctrineprohibitedachallengetovalidity casesreferto Id. at436. (citing SecondCircuitthenreconsidered andorderedthetrialcourttomakeafull sua sponte 22 forthepoliticalinterestofthiscountrymay,asa Bernstein v.Van Alfred DunhillofLondonInc.v.RepublicCuba Liu v.RepublicofChina . Liu , 892F.2dat1432.Obviously,where,ashere,the 33 HeyghenFreresSocieteAnonyme aletterstatingitswas“thepolicyoftheExecutive Id. at420,431-33.TheCourt , 892F.2d1419,1432(9thCir. sua sponte , 163F.2d246 , 425U.S. , 173 by this F.2d United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 international lawhasbeen violated.”376U.S.at431.Thefactthatthechallenged actionoftheforeign norms areviolated.Asthe Courtnotedin international law,butondomesticlawandpolicyof the foreignstate. acts ofindividualofficialsareattributabletotheforeign statesoastoconstituteactsofturnsnoton FSIA immunityofindividualofficials,however,this argumentisnotsupportedbycaselaw.Whetherthe thus theactofstatedoctrinecannotbeinvoked.As withtheparallelargumentmaderespectto international lawand/or state. Province. Thequestioniswhethertheallegedconductofthesetwoindividualofficialsconstitutesanact of ranking memberoftheChineseCommunistParty)andDeputyProvincialGovernorLiaoNing undoubtedly apply. asserted.”). Thus,werethesuitsatbarbroughtdirectlyagainstPRC,actofstateanalysiswould 1354, 1360(9thCir.1981)(“Whenthestate acted initssovereigncapacity”); F.2d at1432(statingthatpartyassertingactofstatedoctrinemustofferevidence“thegovernment the “governmentalfunctionsofaState.” public actconstitutesanofstateifitinvolves“theandgovernmentalactssovereignstates,” legality orproprietyofpublicactscommittedwithinaforeignstate’sownborders”).Officialaction powers”); question iswhether“theconductinwasthepublicactofthosewithauthoritytoexercisesovereign action byaforeignsovereign”)(emphasisinoriginal); arise whenacourt Kirkpatrick &Co.v.Envtl.TectonicsCorp. rule onthelegalityofan“officialactaforeignsovereignperformedwithinitsownterritory.” The actofstatedoctrineis notrenderedinappositesimplybecauseinternational lawor The The instantcases,however,arebroughtagainsttwoofficials–theMayorofBeijing(nowahigh The actofstatedoctrinepresupposesan“actstate.”Itarisesonlywhenthecourtisrequiredto Liu Liu , 892F.2dat1432(actofstatedoctrineimplicated“whencourtsareaskedtojudgethe and mustdecide Xia jus cogens Plaintiffsarguethatbecausetheirconductviolatedcustomarystandardsof –thatis,whentheoutcomeofcaseturnsuponeffectofficial Int’l Ass’nofMachinists&AerospaceWorkersv.OPEC norms,theiractscannotbedeemedtoofficial ofthestate,and Alfred DunhillofLondon Sabbatino qua , 493U.S.400,405-406(1990)(“Actofstateissuesonly stateactsinthepublicinterest,itssovereigntyis 34 Alfred Dunhill , “theactofstatedoctrine is applicableevenif , 425U.S.at695-96;

of London, 452U.S.at694(the see Liu , 649F.2d W.S. jus cogens , 892 i.e., United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 government. the official’sconductviolated theforeignstate’sfundamentallawsandwaswholly unratifiedbythenation’s official aresufficienttoimplicatetheactofstatedoctrine. 862F.2dat1361. of theiractsasstate,”thecourthadnooccasion toaddressunderwhatcircumstancestheactsofan the Marcoseshadatthatpointinlitigation“offered noevidencewhatsoevertosupporttheclassification not opposeadjudicationofthesuit,thatactstate defensedidnotbarthesuit. balancing variousfactors,includingthefactthatMarcos hadbeendeposedandthattheUnitedStatesdid applied the question. In constitute anactofstate.TheNinthCircuithasnothadopportunitytoaddresstheparamentersthis of thedefendantofficialsinthiscasearesufficientlyattributabletogovernmentChinasoas misleading nationalgovernmentwerenotactsofstate). but infactwasallegedtohavegonebeyondhisauthoritythecampaignLebanonandbyintentionally (S.D.N.Y. 1984)(actsofthenGeneralSharonnotallegedtohavebeenauthorizedbytheStateIsrael, could properlybecharacterizedasanactofstate); the ConstitutionandlawsofRepublicParaguay,whollyunratifiedbythatnationsgovernment” Pena-Irala unratified bythatnation’sgovernment”couldbeproperlycharacterizedasanactofstate); 250 (doubtingwhetheractsofstateofficial“takeninviolationanation’sfundamentallawandwholly national government,notonwhetherhisorheractsviolatedinternationalstandards. have focusedonwhethertheofficialactedconsistentwithforeignstate’slawsorapprovalby 376 U.S.at427.Asacorollary,neitherisitcontrolledbyinternationallaw. a violationofinternationallaw.Theactstatedoctrineisnotcompelledby the thresholdquestionofwhetherthereisanactstate. state violatesclearinternationalconsensusinformsthedoctrinalanalysis( In addressingtheissue, SecondCircuitindicatedthatthereisnorequisite“act ofstate”where The questioniswhether,asmeasuredbydomesticlawsandpoliciesoftheforeignstate,acts The caseswhichhaveaddressedwhetherconductofindividualofficialsconstitutesanactstate , 630F.2d876,889(2dCir.1980)(doubtingwhetheractionbyastateofficial“inviolationof Sabbatino Republic ofthePhilippinesv.Marcos Kadic , 70F.3dat250; analysistoaRICOsuitagainstformerPresidentMarcosandhiswifeheld,after Filartiga , 630F.2dat889.Unlike thefactsin Sharon v.Time,Inc. 35 , 862F.2d1355(9thCir.1988)(enbanc),thecourt Id. at428.The i.e. , 599F.Supp.538,544 Sabbatino thefirst Id See Kadic Sabbatino analysispresupposes Kadic . at1360-61 Filartiga v. and Sabbatino , factor),not

70 F.3dat Filartiga . Since , , United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 disavowed bythegovernment immunizethegovernmentfromliability. negate thegovernment’sliability. Norwouldthefactthatthosecustomsorpolicies weresecretandpublicly custom municipality of 558 (5thCir.1962)(dictator’sembezzlementandfraud notprotectedbyactofstatedoctrine). with conductundertakenforpurelyprivatefinancial gain as official “actingwithinthescopeofauthorityorunder colorofsuchauthority”).Enactmentorissuancea 207(c) (1987)(stateisresponsibleforviolationsofinternational lawresultingfromactionorinactionbyan [of] powerspeculiartosovereigns.” does notgainsaythefactthatconductinexecutionofpolicyisa“governmentalact”and“exercise Underhill among sovereignnationsisimplicatedwhenevertheofficialexecutespolicyofsovereign. and inconsistentwithofficiallaw.Thedoctrine’sconcernofaffordingrespectcomitybetween engages inconductexecutingpolicyauthorizedorratifiedbythegovernmentevenifthatiscovert essential toanactofstate. at 889.Inthecasesbar,onlyfirstconditionismet.TheCourtconcludessecond conduct was“whollyunratified”bythenation’sgovernment. conditions aremet:(1)theconductviolatedfundamentallawsofforeignsovereignand(2) may constituteactsofstate.Inbothcases,thecourtindicatedthereisnoactstatewhere circuit. nonetheless ratifiedbythenationalgovernment.Thisappearstobeaquestionoffirstimpressioninthis whether theanalysisofactstatedoctrineappliestosuchconductthatisviolativedomesticlawbut consistent withandpursuanttotheunofficialpolicyofnationalgovernment. movement andviolationoftheinternationalhumanrightsFalunGongpractitionersappearstobe nation’s government.”Indeed,asdiscussedabove,thePRC’sallegedrepressionofFalunGong Defendants’ acts,thoughapparentlyviolativeofthestate’sdomesticlaw,arenot“whollyunratifiedbythat publicofficials.Under orpolicyofthegovernment. Thatthoseactsviolate 24 23 The policyconsiderationsunderlyingtheactofstatedoctrineareimplicatedwhereapublicofficial The languageoftheSecondCircuit’sdecisionsin ThesituationisanalogoustoprovisionsofAmerican law governinggovernmentalliabilityfortheacts TheactsoftheDefendantsLiuandXiainfurtherance ofnationalpolicyasallegedhereincontrasts , 168U.S.at252.Thatthegovernment’spolicyiscovertorinconsistentwithitsdomesticlaw maybeheldliableindamages foractsofitsindividualofficialsifthose arepursuanttoa Monell v.DepartmentofSocial Services Alfred DunhillofLondon 36 in Kadic e.g e.g.Jimenezv.Aristeguieta Kadic . federalstatutesortheconstitution doesnot , 425U.S.at704. and , 70F.3dat250; Filartiga , 436U.S.658,694(1978), a 23 suggestthatsuchconduct Thequestionthenis 24

Cf Filartiga . Restatement§ , 311F.2d547, both , 630F.2d oftwo United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 addresses differentconcerns thanthedoctrineofsovereignimmunity. FSIA doesnotsupersede the actofstatedoctrine,NinthCircuitnotedthat theactofstatedoctrine domestic laws. doctrine areimplicatedregardlessofwhetherthesubject policyisconsistentwiththeforeignstate’s diplomacy bytheStateDepartment,separationof powersconsiderationsunderpinningtheactofstate policy.” “[s]uch litigationcanservetodetractfrom,orinterfere with,theExecutiveBranch’sconductofforeign the actsofforeignofficialstakenwithintheirowncountriespursuanttogovernment’spolicy,”andthat policy interests.” human rightsinChina,anditwillcontinuetoapplythosetoolswithinthecontextofourbroaderforeign Department alsostatesthatthe“ExecutiveBranchhasmanytoolsatitsdisposaltopromoteadherence to William H.Taft,IVtoAssistantAttorneyGen.RobertD.McCallumofSept.25,2002,at2-3.TheState mistreatment ofpractitionerstheFalunGongmovementareamatterpublicrecord..”Letterfrom including FalunGongpractitioners.OurcriticalviewsregardingthePRCGovernment’sabuseand concerns knowntotheGovernmentofPRCandhascalleduponitrespectrightsallitscitizens, the letterfromStateDepartmentfiledhereinstates,“theUnitedStateshasrepeatedlymadethese movement, theStateDepartmenthasaddressedissueinitsdiplomaticcommunicationswithChina. As the PRC’spublicdisclaimerofhumanrightsviolationsandwrongdoinginitstreatmentFalunGong is thesubjectofdiplomacy. avoiding conflictwithandembarrassmentoftheExecutiveBranchareimplicatedwhereconductatissue of havingourgovernmentspeakwithonecoherentvoiceonmattersforeignaffairs,andtheinterestin policy, ortheintegritymotivationofitsaction”). (9th Cir.1977)(expressinghesitancyto“challengethesovereigntyofanothernation,wisdomits even ifthatpolicyiscovert,another. sovereign power. “statute, decree,order,orresolution”bythegovernmentisonewayinwhichstateexercisesits The analysisoftheactstate doctrinethusdivergesfromthatofFSIAimmunity. Inholdingthe Id. Moreover, theconcernsofactstatedoctrineforseparationpowers,desirability at7-8(emphasisinoriginal).Whereaforeignstate’s policyisthespecificsubjectofforeign Id. Alfred Dunhill at7.Iturgesthat“U.S. Sabbatino

of London , 376U.S.at423,431-433; Cf. TimberlineLumberCo.v.BankofAm. , 425U.S.at694-95.Creationandimplementationofpolicy, courts 37 should becautiouswhenaskedtositinjudgmenton OPEC Liu , 892F.2dat1432; , 649F.2dat1360.Despite , 549F.2d597,607 OPEC , 649 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Republic ofArg. was actinginthepublicinterest. 376 U.S.at428.TheNinthCircuithasalsoheldthat thecourtshouldconsiderwhetherforeignstate determine whethertheactofstatedoctrinebarssuit: C. to policyandthereforeconstitutedactsofstate.Hence,the establishes thattheDefendants’allegedconductwasnot“whollyunratified”byPRC.Itpursuant by thenationalgovernment embodied intheactofstatedoctrineobtainwheneverofficialactspursuanttoauthorityorratification committing anunconstitutionalactorotherwiseviolatingapplicablelaw).However,thepolicyconcerns or hersovereignimmunitydefenseifhesheexceedsthescopeofavalidgrantauthority( The FSIAembodiestheprincipleofsovereignimmunitylawunderwhichapublicofficialisstrippedhis doctrine ismeanttofacilitatetheforeignrelationsofUnitedStates..” foreign states,butalsothesphereofpowerco-equalbranchesourgovernment.” of Americancourts. States bystatutewhereastheactofstatedoctrineisadomesticlegalprinciplearisingfrompeculiarrole state doctrineisprudential.SovereignimmunityaprincipleofinternationallawrecognizedbytheUnited F.2d at1359-60.Thelawofsovereignimmunitygoestothejurisdictioncourt,whereasact It iswellestablishedthattorture constitutes 1. As discussedabove,theSupremeCourtin The Accordingly, thisCourtfindsthatinthecontextofthesedefaultproceedings,evidence Sabbatino , 965F.2d699,714-15(9th Cir.1992).Asdiscussedbelow,theallegedacts oftorture, Degree ofInternational Consensus existence . government whichperpetratedthechallengedactof state isnolongerin [3] Thebalanceofrelevantconsiderationsmayalso be shiftedifthe branches. relations, theweakerjustificationforexclusivityin thepolitical [2] [T]helessimportanttheimplicationsofanissueareforourforeign regarding it. judiciary torenderdecisions particular areaofinternationallaw,themoreappropriateitisfor [1] [T]hegreaterthedegreeofcodificationorconsensusconcerninga OPEC Analysis regardless , 649F.2dat1359.Thedoctrine“recognizesnotonlythesovereigntyof Liu , 892F.2dat1432. of whetherthoseactscomplywithofficialdomesticlaw. jus cogens Sabbatino 38 Sabbatino developedathree-factorbalancingtestto violations. analysisapplies. Marcos Siderman deBlakev. , 862F.2dat1361. Id. “The e.g. by United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 extrajudicial killings–beamenable toadjudicationbythefederalcourts. Moreover, inenactingtheTVPA,Congressindicated itsdesirethatcertainconduct–tortureand supra, Congress transferredultimateresponsibilityfromthe executivebranchtothejudiciary. Executive Branchonwhetherparticularforeignstates shouldbesubjecttosuitonacasebybasis; enacting theFSIA,Congressintendedtoendpractice ofaffordingtotaldeferencetotheviews guessing judgmentsmadebytheStateDepartmenthazardous.Onotherhand,aspreviouslynoted, in competence ofthejudiciarytoassessimpactuponitsrulingsforeignrelationsmakessecond responsibility forconductingforeignrelationslieswiththeExecutiveBranch.Thelimitedinstitutional consideration. accorded inanygivencase.”); for interferencewithourforeignrelations-isthecrucialelementindeterminingwhetherdeferenceshould be our foreignrelations”); is avoidingcourtrulings“thatmightembarrasstheExecutiveBranchofourGovernmentinconduct see alsoAlfredDunhillofLondon ‘crucial element’isthepotentialforinterferencewithourforeignrelations.” OPEC that “theUnitedStatesmustspeakwithonevoiceandpursueacarefuldeliberateforeignpolicy.” standards. basis forcommanderresponsibilitythoseactsarealsoconsistentwithwellrecognizedinternationallaw law ofnationsonwhichabroaddegreeinternationalconsensusexists.Moreover,asnotedbelow,the cruel, inhumanordegradingtreatmentandarbitrarydetentionwhichtheCourtfindsactionableviolate , 649F.2dat1358.Thisisthecentralfactorin 912 F.2dat1100; In thisregard,theviewsofStateDepartment,whilenot“conclusive,”areentitledtorespectful The second 2. Accordingly, thefirst

See Kadic infra, Implications forForeignRelations Sabbatino , 70F.3dat250; Part VIII Timberline Lumber Letelier v.RepublicofChile Sabbatino Liu . factorreflectsthe“peculiarrequirementsofsuccessfulforeignrelations”– , 892F.2dat1432(accord). , 425U.S.at697(the“majorunderpinningoftheactstatedoctrine” Sharon factorweighsagainsttheactofstatedefense. , 549F.2dat607(“Thetouchstoneof , 599F.Supp.at552.Thereasonisobvious.Primary 39 , 488F.Supp.665,670(D.D.C.1980). Sabbatino analysisand“[t]he‘touchstone’or Id. at1360(citationomitted); Sabbatino See Chuidian, - thepotential United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 (damages andequitablerelief) wouldnotinterferewiththeExecutiveBranch’s foreigndiplomacyefforts. committed violationsofinternational humanrightsandimposingsanctionsinthe formofreliefsoughtherein PRC’s repressionoftheFalunGong,anadjudication bythisCourtfindingthatgovernmentofficials misinformation orfaultyreasoning.”). subject; itmaynotassesswhetherthepolicyarticulated iswiseorunwise,whetheritbasedon accept thestatementofforeignpolicyprovidedby executivebranchasconclusiveofitsviewthat Tinto PLC. whether thepositionadoptedbyUnitedStatesiswell-foundedorfactuallyaccurate.” for thecourt’spurposeiswhethertherewillbeanimpactonUnitedStates’foreignrelations,not instant casescouldintereferewiththeExecutiveBranch’sforeigndiplomacyinthismatter,“thekeyinquiry in original). Letter fromWilliamH.Taft,IVtoAssistantAttorneyGen.McCallumofSept.25,2002,at7-8(emphasis the viewthat: The StateDepartmenturgedagainstadjudicationoftheinstantsuits.Initsletter,expresses The PlaintiffscontendthatbecausetheExecutiveBranch hasalreadypubliclycondemnedthe While theStateDepartmentdoesnotdescribewithanymorespecificityhowadjudicationof As mentionedpreviously,thisCourtinvitedtheviewsofStateDepartmentoncasesatbar. , 221F.Supp.2d1116,1192(C.D.Cal.2002). argue infavoroffindingthesuitsnon-justiciable. foreign policyconsequencesthatsuchlitigationcangenerate,wouldinourview . [P]racticalconsiderations,whencoupledwiththepotentiallyseriousadverse Branch’s conductofforeignpolicy. . Suchlitigationcanservetodetractfrom,orinterferewith,theExecutive to theirgovernment’spolicy.. judgment ontheactsofforeignofficialstakenwithintheirowncountriespursuant We believe,however,thatU.S. context ofourbroaderforeignpolicyinterests. to humanrightsinChina,anditwillcontinueapplythesetoolswithinthe . TheExecutiveBranchhasmanytoolsatitsdisposaltopromoteadherence of humanrightsinChina.. Magistrate Chen,isnotthebestwayforUnitedStatestoadvancecause government’s actionsagainsttheFalunGong],includingcasesbefore adjudication ofthesemultiplelawsuits[challengingthelegalityChinese courts 40 shouldbecautiouswhenaskedtositin See alsoid . at1181-82(“[T]hecourtmust Sarei v.Rio United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 1991 afterSouthAfricatook stepstowarddemocracy). den government, andinstituted civil established enac those apartheid, therewasintensedebate “U.S. StanceonWarCrimesCourtReopensRift withAllies,” resistance the to physical presence contact economic isolationtothreatsofwar. variety ofapproachestochangingaforeignstate’spolicy,rangingfrom in regardthereto.Aspastdebatesoverotherforeigndiplomaticeffortshavedemonstrated,therearea Branch’s condemnationofthePRC’shumanrightspolicy,theremaybedifferentapproachestodiplomacy Executive Branch. by afederalcourtmightinsomecircumstanceshaveforeignpolicyimplicationsbeyondthatdesiredthe international lawviolation.Ifitdoesfindsuchviolations,asherein,theimprimaturofformalfindings the Court,inexaminingsufficiencyofComplaintsandevidencepresented,willfactfindan 376 U.S.at432.Eventhoughthecasesbarareproceedingbywayofdefault,thatisnoguarantee the Courtin not eliminatethemfortworeasons. While thisfactmaywellmitigatethepotentialconflictbetweencoordinatebranchesofgovernment,itdoes theUnitedStatescouldexacerbatetensionarisingout ofthesesuits.Thisassertiontheouterreaches jurisdictionofthefederaljudiciaryinthesecasesmight appearespeciallyironicinviewofthegovernment’s Berg ted theComprehensiveAnti-ApartheidAct(“CAAA”) of1986,22U.S.C.5001 whoadvocated“constructiveengagement”withitsgovernment. Overridingapresidentialveto,Congress withtheUnitedStatesandthatpersonaljurisdiction isbasedsolelyonserviceduringtheirtransitory 26 25 Second andmoreimportantly,althoughtheconclusionsofthisCourtcoincidewithExecutive First, pronouncementsorrulingsfromthedifferentbranchesmayhaveimplications.As , Forinstance,whilevirtuallyallofficialsandpolicy makerscondemnedSouthAfrica’ssystemof TheCourtalsonotesthatthefacttwoindividualDefendantshereinappeartohavehadlittle tosubmissionsuchinternationalbodiesastheInternational CriminalCourt. 5F.3d439,440(9thCir. 1993) (discussingtheCAAAanditsterminationby ExecutiveOrderin U.S.policytowardSouth Africaandimposedsubstantialsanctionsagainst itswhiteminority Sabbatino intheUnitedStatesandfactthatmanyofPlaintiffs havelittleornotsubstantialties the contrary. determination flewinthefaceofaStateDepartmentproclamationto finding thatinternationallawstandardshadbeenmetif serious andfar-reachingconsequenceswouldflowfromajudicial however, impartial,mightincreaseanyaffront.Considerablymore expropriation, thestampofapprovalitsviewbyajudicialtribunal, Even iftheStateDepartmenthasproclaimedimproprietyof 25 highlighted, andcriminalliabilityforviolations oftheAct. betweenthosewhoadvocatedboycottingandisolating SouthAfricaand 26 Thus,forinstance,anorderimposingasignificantdamageaward 41 S.F.Chron.,June11,2003,atA8. e.g. “constructiveengagement”to See e.g.,UnitedStatesv. van See

Felicity et seq Barringer, ., which United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 are doctrines requirecourtsto defertotheexecutiveorlegislativebranchesofgovernment when 1046 (“Theactofstatedoctrine isessentiallythe a distinctionwithoutdifference. substantial overlapbetween thatdoctrineandtheact here. these circumstances,thisCourtdoesnotread as theforeignrelations“equivalent”ofpoliticalquestion doctrine. the doctrine. that theactofstatedoctrinebarredenvironmentaltort andracialdiscriminationclaims. impact applies. Itdoesclearlyexpressthe directly indicatewhetheritbelievesanyoftheact state,politicalquestion Inquiries, at4-5.The would Sarei the ATCAorTVPAforviolationsofinternationalhumanrightsoccurringentirelyoutsideUnitedStates. asserted, finds its defendants because policy. for 1192. of anexpressionconcernsuchasthatcommunicatedbytheStateDepartmenthere.”221 cited, andthecourthasnotfound,asinglecaseinwhichpermittedlawsuittoproceedface a letterwillbehighlypersuasiveifnotbinding.”Restatementat§443n.9. if theStateDepartmentissuesaletterrequestingthatcourtsnotreviewvalidityofparticularact,such State Departmenthasstatedapositiononapplicationoftheactstatedoctrine,concludes:“Itseemsthat “respectful consideration.” policy interests.” State DepartmentwhichtheExecutiveBranchchoosestoapply“withincontextofourbroaderforeign upon thetwodefendantofficialsorissuinganinjunctioncouldwellconflictwith“tools”alludedtoby judgmentthattheassertionofjurisdictionoverthesecasescoulddisruptforeignrelations.Indeed,Court thesamereasonsthatcourtsarereluctanttosecondguessExecutiveBranchonquestionsofforeign actofstatedoctrineunderliethepoliticalquestiondoctrine” anditcharacterizedtheactofstatedoctrine betterequippedtohandle apoliticallysensitiveissue..Neitherdoctrine is susceptibletoinflexible thatcontrarytotheDepartment’slegalarguments,itisclearoncepersonaljurisdictionproperly Giventhatplaintiff’sclaimsin rejectedapplicationoftheactstatedoctrinedespiteStateDepartment’sassertionthatcase 28 interferewithforeignrelations. UnitedStatesforeignrelationswithPapuaNewGuinea.” 221F.Supp.2dat1190.Thecourtheld Thus,theStateDepartment’slegalargumentsthatcourtshouldrefrainfromexercisingjurisdiction ThecasesinvolvingCubanexpropriationsareinstructive.When More 28 27 theallegedactsoccurredentirelyoutsideUnitedStatesorbecausepersonaljurisdictionover As anempiricalmatter,thisCourtnotesthatasobservedbythecourtin As notedabove,whiletheviewsofStateDepartmentarenotdispositive,theyentitledto Filartiga, Afterthehearing, Id DeferenceisduetotheStateDepartmentonissuesinvolvingpolitical,ratherthanlegaljudgments wereobtainedonlybyallegedserviceofprocessduringanofficialvisitisentitledtolessweightthan . at1185-93.Thecourtacknowledgedthat“thesame separationofpowersprinciplesthatinform importantly,in Kadic,Marcos,Hilao Sarei Kadic court noted,“The Sarei Liu , 70F.3dat250.TheRestatement,afterreviewingcasesinwhichthe Cf. Northrop view,however,thatcontinuedadjudicationofthislawsuit willnegatively , thedistrictcourtultimatelybarredallclaimsunder the politicalquestion Plaintiffssubmittedasupplementalbriefarguingthatthedistrict Sarei Liu

II werebarredbythepoliticalquestiondoctrine,and giventhe , Plaintiffs’Post-HearingMemoranduminResponsetoCourt andtheirprogenyestablishesthatclaimsmaybebroughtunder Sarei StatementofInterestfiledbytheDepartmentStatedoesnot Corp.v.McDonnellDouglas Corp foreigncounterparttothe politicalquestiondoctrine.Both ’s ofstatedoctrine,the 42 holdingascontrarytotherecommendationpresented Id . at1196(citationsomitted). Liu Sabbatino 27 orinternationalcomitydoctrines Plaintiffs’argumentamounts to Sarei wasbeforethe ., , “plaintiffshavenot Id

supra . at1185-93. thosebranches

F. Supp.2dat , 705F.2dat courtin Under United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 jurisdiction.”). a concurred intheresultbut objectedtothe Douglas concurredinthe 649 F.2dat1358-59). definition, doctrine. TheStateDepartmentproclaimeditsposition thatthecasedidnotraiseanactofstatequestion. the courtofappealsheldthatajudgmentagainst defendantimporterswasbarredbytheactofstate expropriated CubancigarcompaniesagainstAmericanimporterstorecoverpaymentsforshipments, U.S. at769-70. should automaticallydefertotheExecutive’swishesandfindactofstatedoctrinenotapplicable.406 not apply.Athree-justicepluralityreliedupontheStateDepartment’sletteranddeclaredthatCourt the SecondCircuit,althoughitpresentedonlyfracturedreasoningastowhyactofstatedoctrineshould barred thecounterclaim.442F.2d530,532,536-38(2dCir.1971).AmajorityofCourtreversed but theSecondCircuitheldthatnotwithstandingStateDepartment’schangeofposition, for reconsiderationinlightoftheStateDepartment’sletterthatactstatedoctrineshouldnotapply, Bank’s counterclaim.431F.2d394(2dCir.1970).TheSupremeCourtsubsequentlyremandedthecase defense toCityBank’scounterclaims.TheSecondCircuitheldthattheactofstatedoctrine Nacional deCuba.Cubasuedtorecovertheexcessproceedsandassertedactofstatedoctrineasa secured aloan(whichexceededthevalueofbranches)ithadmadetopredecessorBanco Cuban governmentseizedCityBankbranchesinCuba.retaliatedbysellingcollateralwhich The CourtultimatelyadoptedtheSolicitorGeneral’sposition.376U.S.at430-432. Executive Branchreversedcourse.TheSolicitorGeneralurgedapplicationoftheactstatedoctrine. of statedoctrine.307F.2dat858-859.However,when applied, andtheSecondCircuitreliedonthislettertoaffirmdistrictcourt’sdecisionnotapplyact Second Circuit,oneoftheStateDepartmentlettersstronglysuggestedthatactstatedoctrinenotbe doctrinewhichwouldrequire thejudiciarytoreceiveExecutive’spermission beforeinvokingits 29 In Likewise, in

andbothmustbeappliedonacase-by-casebasisby balancing avarietyoffactors.”)(citing This Alfred DunhillofLondon opinionwasauthoredbyJustice Rehnquist,joinedbyBurgerandWhite. 29

First Nat’lCityBankv.BancoNacionaldeCuba resultbutpreferredtorely onequitableconsiderations. , 495U.S.at695-706,anactionbroughtbyformerownersof Bernstein exception. 43 Sabbatino Id . at773(“Iwouldbeuncomfortable with reachedtheSupremeCourt, , 406U.S.759(1972),the Id . at772.JusticePowell Id . at765-70.Justice Sabbatino

barred City OPEC , United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 and thatsuchlawsuitsaredetrimentaltoChina-USrelations. InparticulartheGovernmentcontendsthat allegations oftortureandmistreatmentassertsthat theU.S.Courtshavenojurisdictionoversuchsuits Gov’t oftheP.R.C.on“FalunGong”Unwarranted Lawsuits, at1-2(translated).Theletterdenies stability byincitinglawlessanddisruptiveactsincluding sabotageandsuicidebombings.Statementofthe Chinese societyandpeople,”thatishas“seriously disruptedthelawandorder,”endangeredsocial Falun Gongisnotareligiousbelieforspiritualmovementbutan“evilcultthatseriouslyendangersthe Court urgingthisnottoassertjurisdictionovertheinstantcases.ThePRCassertsinitsletterthat state doctrineandpoliticalquestiondoctrine). a humanrightssuitwouldriskpotentiallyseriousadverseimpactonforeignrelationsinapplyingtheactof Sarei 895, 902(2dCir.1981)(actofstatedoctrinedefenserecognizedwhenBernsteinletternotobtained); obtained); 658 F.2d903,911(2dCir.1981)(actofstatedoctrinedefenserecognizedwhenBernsteinletternot doctrine heldnottoapplywhenBernsteinletterobtained); Nacional deCubav.ChaseManhattanBank after StateDepartmentfiledbriefrecommendingthattheactofstatedoctrinedidnotbarsuit); F.2d 516(2dCir.1985)(SecondCircuitreversedbothitsownearlierrulingandthatofthedistrictcourt ruled thattheactofstatedoesnotbarsuit); act ofstatedoctrinenotadefenseinRICOactionagainstformerpresidentPhilippines,NinthCircuit that actofstatedoctrinedidnotapply); the StateDepartmentadvisedthatthiscasewouldnotinterfereinforeignaffairs,andSupremeCourtheld (RICO actioninvolvingallegationsofconstructioncompany’sbriberypaymentstoNigeriangovernment, argument waspersuasive. The SupremeCourtsubsequentlyreversed,withafour-justicepluralitystatingthattheStateDepartment’s , 221F.Supp.2dat1181(courtaffordsrespectfulconsiderationtotheStateDepartment’sviewthat In addition,thePRC,throughUnitedStatesDepartmentofState,submittedalettertothis First Nat’lBankofBoston(Int’l)v.BancoNacionaldeCubaChemical normal exchangesandcooperation betweenChinaandtheUnited lawsuits. Inthatcase,itwould causeimmeasurableinterferencestothe organization andembolden ittoinitiatemoresuchfalse,unwarranted lawsuits, theywouldsend a wrongsignaltothe“FalunGong”cult If theUScourtsshouldentertain the“FalunGong”trumped-up Id . at695-706. Marcos See alsoW.SKirkpatrick&Co. Allied Bankv.BancoCreditoAgricoladeCartago , 658F.2d875,884-85(2dCir.1981)(actofstate , 862F.2d1355(enbanc)(StateDepartmentarguesthat 44 Banco NacionaldeCubav.ChemicalBank , 493U.S.at403-409 Banco , 658F.2d , 757 , United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 injunctive reliefagainstDefendant Xia. counsel forthe the Complaintin into thesovereigntyofPRCrisksenormousimplications forourforeignrelations.Accordingly,though order incontraventionofPRC’spracticesorpolicies wouldobviouslybedisruptive.Suchadirectintrusion the verynatureofthisactionandremedysought” –injunctivereliefanddamages). interference withtheeffortsofpoliticalbranches toseekfavorablerelationswiththemisapparentfrom Swiss freezeorders”); compelling theBankstotransferorotherwiseconveyEstateassetswouldbeindirectcontraventionof Credit Suissev.U.S.Dist.Ct. the sovereigntyofforeignstate,moreconcernsactstatedoctrineareimplicated. force ofthisfactormaydependuponthenaturereliefsought.Themoreintrusiveremedy Marcos, HumanRightsLitig.(“HilaoII”) expressly disclaimedanyoppositiontothesuitagainstitsformerruler. of thecasesatbarstandinstarkcontrasttosituation second United States.Thefact jurisdiction overtheinstantsuitsandviewssuchasdetrimentaltorelationsbetweenChina notice underFed.R.Evid.201(b)(2)ofthe the PRC’sfactualassertionscontainedinitssubmission.However,Courtcananddoestakejudicial no declarationofacompetentwitnessunderoath).Accordingly, party tothesuitandbecauseassertionsarenotbasedoncompetentadmissibleevidence(thereis Id . at6. Sabbatino Any injunctivereliefwhichwouldcommandthedefendant officialstocomplywiththisCourt’s Accordingly, thesecond This CourtcannotassumetheveracityoffactualassertionsmadebyPRCsinceitisnota Xia two countries. States inallfields,andseverelyunderminethecommoninterestsof factor–thesignificancetoourforeignrelations.GivenPRC’sposition,posture Plaintiffsacknowledgedat thehearinghereinthatPlaintiffsdonotseekany Xia OPEC

casepraysforinjunctiverelief(withoutspecifyingwhat thatreliefwouldbe), that theforeignstatewhosepoliciesareatissueobjectstosuitinforms , 649F.2dat1361(“ThepossibilityofinsulttotheOPECstatesand , 130F.3d1342,1347(9thCir.1997) Sabbatino fact , 25F.3d1467,1472(9thCir.1994). factorgenerallyweighsagainstjusticiability.However,the thatthePRCvigorouslyopposesassertionof 45 Hilao II,

the Courtcannottakejudicialnoticeof wherethePhilippinegovernment In reEstateofFerdinandE.

(“Any orderfromthedistrictcourt

Cf. United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 monetary liabilitywill“unduly inhibitofficialsinthedischargeoftheirduties”). U.S. 635,638(1987)(permitting damagesuits interference Fitzgerald individual publicofficialsare affordedqualifiedimmunityfromsuitunder42U.S.C. record” andaresetforthintheDepartment’sannual human rightsreports.LetterfromWilliamH.Taft,IV Government’s abuseandmistreatmentofpractitioners oftheFalunGongmovementareamatterpublic practitioners. InitsStatementofInterest,theStateDepartment notedits“criticalviewsregardingthePRC public pronouncementsoftheStateDepartmentcondemning China’srepressivepolicytowardFalunGong W.S. Kirkpatrick&Co. sovereign performedwithinitsownterritory,”itdoesnotcommandthestateorofficialstodoanything. implicates theactofstatedoctrineinasmuchasitentailsrulingonlegalityan“officialaforeign reasons. First,althoughthejudicialactofdeclaringaforeignstate’spolicyasviolativeinternationallaw likely tohavesubstantialimplicationsforforeigndiplomacy. risks asubstantialdegreeofinterferencewiththeforeignstate’sadministrationgovernment her state’spoliciesorbesubjectedtodamagesliabilityimposedbyaUnitedStatescourt.Suchdilemma sanctions wouldsubjectthestate’sofficialstoconflictingcommands–officialmusteitherviolatehis or award effectivelyimposeasanctionagainstthestate’spolicy,butriskofpersonalexposuretomonetary monetary sanctionsistheofficial’simplementationofforeignstate’spolicy.Notonlywouldsuchan than directlyagainstthestateitself,doesnotobviateimpactonforeignrelationsifbasisof Africa); deliberation betweenthepoliticalbranchesofgovernment. of thetoolsforeigndiplomacythathasoftenbeencontroversialandsubjectdebate sanctions againstaforeignstate’sactions.TheCourtnotesthattheimpositionofeconomicisone constitutes asignificantinvasionofsovereignty.Itseffectwouldbesimilartotheimpositionmonetary national governmentofthePRC),whilenotasintrusiveintosovereigntyaninjunction,nonetheless 30 van denBerg Second, inthecasesatbar,anysuchdeclarationwouldbegenerallyconsistentwithprior In contrast,therequestfordeclaratoryreliefposesleastthreattoforeignrelationsseveral A monetarydamagesawardbasedontheDefendant’sactsofstate(conductattributableto Itisforsimilarreasons–theconcernofinterfering withtheadministrationofgovernment–that , withtheirdutiesandfrom potentially disablingthreatsofliability”); 457U.S.800,806(1980)(purpose ofqualifiedimmunityistoprotectpublicofficials from“undue , 5F.3dat440.Thatdamagesareimposeduponindividualpublicofficials,rather , 493U.S.at405. againstindividualofficials presentsriskthatfearofpersonal 46

See infra footnote 25(discussingSouth Anderson §1983. v.Creighton

30 See andisthus

Harlow v. , 483 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 expression”). Chinese http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/rm/2001/1806pf.htm) Comm. onHuman Rights,57thSess.,March30, 2001 ( delegation detained andimprisonedpractitioners,wearegoing tocontinue occasions ourconcernsaboutthecrackdownon Falun ( practitioners. in thePeople’sRepublicofChina’slettertothisCourt, alreadyprohibitssuchmistreatment. would notdirectlychallengethelegalityofChina’swritten lawwhich,aspreviouslydiscussedandstated Executive Branch. views oftheStateDepartment,thuscreatingminimalriskdisruptingforeignrelationsconductedby of China’smistreatmentFalunGongpractitioners,adeclaratoryjudgmentwouldessentiallyaffirmthe Id at 17( Country ReportsonHumanRightsPractices-2001,China,UnitedStatesDept.ofState,March4,2002, FLG movement..Directivestopreventprotestsatallcostshasresultedinmanyegregiousabuses.” the past3years,governmenthaswagedaseverepolitical,propaganda,andpolicecampaignagainst to AssistantAttorneyGen.McCallumofSept.25,2002,at3.Themostrecentreportstatesthat“[f]or available . at18,22. available at authorities.brutallyrepress FalunGongpractitionersexercisingrightsof freedom ofbeliefand 31 Moreover, ajudgmentdeclaringthatcertainallegedabusesviolatesinternationalhumanrights

totheU.N.Commissionon HumanRights. AStateDepartmentspokespersonhasalsopublicly condemned China’srepressionofFalunGong at

31 See http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2001.4576pf.htm) GiventheExecutiveBranch’spublicandspecificcondemnationofPeople’sRepublic StatementofPhillipT.Reeker,DailyPressBriefing, U.S.Dept.ofState(August20,2001) custody. approximately 200ormoreFLGadherentshavediedwhileinpolice crossed steelchains).Varioussourcesreportthatsince1997 electric shockandbyhavinghandsfeetshackledlinkedwith detention underextremelyharshconditions,andtorture(including and othersecuritypersonnel,includingpoliceinvolvementinbeatings, reports ofabuseandevenkillingsFLGpractitionersbythepolice by smallchildren.Duringtheyear,therewerenumerouscredible protesters, includingsomewhowereelderlyoraccompanied Police oftenusedexcessiveforcewhendetainingpeacefulFLG examine them. of severebeatingsortorturewerecrematedbeforerelativecould died detentionsince1999;manyoftheirbodiesreportedlyboresigns imprisoned, andthatapproximately200ormoreFLGadherentshave thousands ofFLGadherentshavebeenarrested,detained,and to be“cults,”andoftheFLGinparticular.Varioussourcesreportthat The Governmentintensifieditsrepressionofgroupsthatitdetermined http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2001/eap/8289pf.htm)Thereportgoesontostate: * (“[TheU.S.government] shouldnotbesilentwhenthe 47 See StatementofAmbassador ShirinTahir-Kheli,U.N. Gongandreportsoftorturemistreatment toraisethoseissues”).SohastheU.S. (“WehaveraisedwithChinaonmany available at See Statement United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 suit toproceedovertheact ofstateobjectionadvancedbyanindividualdefendant involveformerdictators, Marcos noted thedifferencebetweensuingasittingofficialandonewhohasbeendeposed: positions inthePRC,andasalleged,continuetoimplementpoliciesquestion.TheNinthCircuithas does thePRCstillexist,butindividualofficialsnamedasDefendantshereincontinueintheirsignificant reasons statedabove,limitingrelieftodeclaratoryjudgmentwouldhavesuchaneffect. Letter fromWilliamH.Taft,IVtoAssistantAttorneyGen.McCallumofSept.25,2002,at8.Forthe orders inamannerthatwouldminimizethepotentialinjurytoforeignrelationsofUnitedStates.” the casesatbar,italsourgesthatifthisCourtdoesnotentirelydismisscase“fashionitsfinal upon formalfindingsafteracontestedtrial. judgment resultingfromsuchadefaultmaywellhavelesserimplicationspoliticallythanbased government itselfparticipated.Whilethismaynotlessenthelegaleffectofafinaljudgment,declaratory level individualofficialsandnotthecrucibleofanadversarialfact-findingprocesstrialinwhich Convention AgainstTortureandOtherCruel,InhumanorDegradingTreatmentPunishment has alwaysbeenaconsistentpositionofthePeople’sRepublicChina.In1986,Chinasigned of theGov’tP.R.C.on“FalunGong”UnwarrantedLawsuits,at3(translated)(“Prohibitiontorture , The third 3. Significantly, whiletheStateDepartmenthascautionedthisCourtagainstexercisingjurisdictionof Finally, adeclaratoryjudgmentintheinstantcaseswouldbebasedupondefaultoftwolower supra , 862F.2dat1360(citing “balance ofconsiderations”isshifted. the dictatorwillfinditdifficulttodeploydefense successfully. The country intoahostileconfrontationwiththedictator. Oncedeposed, when itisapparentthatsustainingsuchchallengewould bringour challenge inourcourtstomanydeedsofadictator power,atleast The classificationmight,itmaybesupposed,used topreventjudicial estoppel existsinsulatingadeposeddictatorfromaccounting. . his fall,maynotbecomethesubjectofscrutinyinourcourts.No foreign countrythathisconduct,ifchallengedbyownafter [T]he classificationof“actstate”isnotapromisetotherulerany Continued ExistenceoftheAccusedGovernment Sabbatino factorclearlyweighsinfavorofapplyingtheactstatedoctrine.Notonly Sabbatino 48 , 376U.S.at428).Virtuallyeverycasepermittinga The .”). United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 their politicalpartyaswell. properly served),butheld that personalinviolabilitycouldnotbe analyzed. Thedistrictcourt dismissedthethreeindividual United permitting theactiontoproceed againstthe reconsideration denied Mudenge, thepresident immunity; addition, to did notinvolveasuitagainstanindividualofficial. was foundto the postureof acting outsidethescopeof of statedefensebecauseitcontradictedTime’stheory Begin andtheCabinetintoexpandingwar.”599F.Supp.at that “Sharon suit http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH00ge0. and resigned in theopinion),had taken suits againstsitting of Supp. 312(D.D.C.1996) implementing currentstatepolicy,thelegalityofwhichisatissue. court hasrefusedtoapplytheactofstatedoctrineinasuitagainstsittingofficialchargedwith extrajudicial killing,tortureandotherhumanrightsabuses. Zimbabwe heldliableformulti-milliondollarjudgmentunderTVPAandATCAcampaignof which individualdefendantsweredismissedbasedonheadofstateimmunity,but 2002) (TVPAdamagesaward),and234F.Supp.2d401(S.D.N.Y.(ATCAin based onthepoliticalquestiondoctrine). interrogation during1970sEthiopianmilitarydictatorshipthenlaterworkedinAtlanta,andrejectingdefense entry ofjudgmentagainstdefendantlocalgovernmentofficialwhohadpersonallysupervisedtortureand TVPA againstaformerofficial”); cf. rulers orofficialsnolongerinpower. interveneforthelimitedpurposeofappealing judgment. 186F.Supp.2d383(S.D.N.Y2002).In Chile S.Rep.No.102-249(“theFSIAshouldnormallyprovidenodefensetoanactiontakenunderthe andTimeMagazinethatassertedanactofstatedoctrinedefensewhilealsotakingthecontraryposition Industryin1984-90. inhis States’foreignpolicyinterests” (169F.Supp.2dat267)theactofstatedoctrine 33 32 asDefenseMinisterheserved“MinisterwithoutPortfolio”in1983-84,thenofTrade theStateDepartmentsubmittedasuggestionofimmunity basedonthreearguments:(1)head-of-state , 488F.Supp.665(D.D.C.1980)ascasesinwhichtheactofstatedoctrinewasfoundnottobar (2)diplomaticimmunity;and(3)personalinviolability attachingtobothdefendantsMugabeand In The former wentbeyondhisauthorityinthecampaignLebanonandintentionallymisledPrimeMinister beunrelatedtotheconductinquestionwhichwastaken solelyinhisindividualcapacity. Mugabe Sharon Liu officials.Thesecasesareinapposite,however.In Plaintiffscite capacityasIsraelidefenseminister.Sharon’spositionatthetimeofsuit(notdescribed nothingtodowiththeactspreviouslycommittedwhiledefenseminister.AfterSharon isdistinctfromtheinstantcases. , wherethedefendantsfailedtoanswer,UnitedStates governmentwaspermitted andforeignminister,respectively.169F.Supp.2d 259,267-68(S.D.N.Y.2001), 186 F.Supp.2d , rev’donothergrounds hisauthorityasanagentofthestatearesimplynotactsstate.”).Insummary, Id . at318. Sharon Abebe-Jira v.Negewo See 32

Id. , 599F.Supp.538 Israeli 383(S.D.N.Y.2002).WhiletheStateDepartment arguedthat But seeTachionav.Mugabe at1361; PresidentandForeignMinister “wouldbeincompatiblewiththe MinistryofForeignAffairswebsite, Moreover,inthatcaseitwasSharonwhobroughtthelibel Kadic , 115F.3d 49 In thecase. defendants(theinformation ministerhadnotbeen , 72F.3d844,848(11thCir.1996)(affirming 33 Jungquist , 70F.3dat250; (S.D.N.Y.1984), ThePlaintiffshavecitednocaseinwhichthe 1020(D.C.Cir.1997);and extendedthroughMugabe andMudengeto 544.ThedistrictcourtrejectedTime’sact See id Sharon , thedefendantCrownPrince’sposition , 216F.Supp.2d262(S.D.N.Y. . at544(“Theactionsofanofficial , atissuewasArielSharon’sacts Filartigo Jungquistv.Nahyan ruling politicalparty , 630F.2dat889; Letelier v.Rep. per available se wasnot Letelier , 940F. of at United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 government atboththelocal andnationallevels” the CCPandthat“Defendant Liuwillcontinuetoexertconsiderableinfluence overpoliciesandactionsof Plaintiffs concedethatDefendant Liuwillassumea“morepowerful”positionas ahighrankingofficialwithin Country ReportsonHumanRightsPractices–2001, China,U.S.Dept.ofState,March4,2001,at1. government, police,andmilitarypositions.Ultimate authorityrestswithmembersofthePolitburo.” the paramountsourceofpower.Atnationaland regionallevels,Partymembersholdalmostalltop Department describesthePRCas“anauthoritarianstate inwhichtheChineseCommunistParty(CCP)is problems swirlingaroundtheFalunGongsectillustrate thismonopolyonpower.”).Infact,theState [Chinese CommunistParty]stillmonopolizespowerandrefusestoacceptchallengesitsauthority.The Chinese Law,TradeandtheNewCentury 6 (acknowledgingtheChineseCommunistParty’s“tightcontrolovergovernment...”);RobertC.Berring, virtually monopolistic,politicalpoweroverthemechanismsofgovernmentinPRC. official between ChineseCommunistPartyandthegovernment,DefendantLiumaynolongerbeagovernment Defendant LiuhasleftthepositionofMayorfora“morepowerful”position.Whilethereisdistinction to suitobtainsalargeextenteveniftheofficialleavespostduringpendencyofsuit.Second, of thissuit.Theconcernaboutthedisruptionforeignrelationsstemmingfromsubjectingasittingofficial Defendant LiuwastheMayorattimesuitfiledandforasubstantialperiodduringpendency see also describes theChineseCommunistPartyPolitburoas“thesecondhighestbodyofpowerinChina.”Exh.1; Nathan Decl.Nonetheless,thenewspaperarticleattachedasanexhibitto diminishes foreignpolicyimplicationsofthissuit.NoticeChangeinDefendant’sStatus(Feb.3.2003); Hearing Supp.Mem.,at2. Beijing’s MunicipalPartyCommittee,apost“morepowerful”thanthepositionofMayor. Beijing toacceptapromotionthehigherpostofSecretaryCommunistPartyforCity memoranda indicatingthatDefendantLiu,subsequenttothefilingofthissuit,lefthispostasMayor per se The Courtisnotconvincedthatthischangemateriallyaltersthe Exh. 2(Politburois“secondhighestseatofpower”) After thehearingonPlaintiffs’motions, , PlaintiffsdonotseriouslydisputethattheChineseCommunistPartywieldsconsiderable,

The Liu Plaintiffs’arguethatDefendantLiu’snewstatussubstantially , 20Nw.J.Int’lL.&Bus.425,444(2000)(“TheCCP Xia Xia 50 Pls.’Post-HearingSupp. Mem.,at3-4.Presumably Plaintiffshavesubmittedpost-hearingsupplemental Sabbatino Liu Plaintiffs’Notice analysis.First, Cf. Xia Nathan Decl.¶ Pls.’Post- United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 if allegedviolationsareproven,theyweredone“inthe publicinterest.” contends thatanysuchviolationswouldbecontrarytoChineselaw. violations ofinternationalhumanrights.Rather,itcategoricallydeniesthattheyoccurred.Indeed,thePRC and arbitrarydetentions–were“inthepublicinterest.”ThePRCdoesnotattempttojustifyalleged allegedly takeninviolationofinternationalhumanrights– thus foundtobetakeninthe“publicinterest,”itwoulddifficultconcludethatmorespecificactions PRC’s purposeinsinglingouttheFalunGongmovementweredemonstratedbycompetentevidenceand Falun Gongweretakenbecauseofthethreattopublichealthandsafetyposedby“cult.”Evenif factor weighsinfavorofapplyingtheactstatedoctrine. relations remainlargelyunaffectedbyDefendantLiu’schangeinposition.Assuch,thethirdSabbatino concerns oftheactstatedoctrine,riskinterferingwithforeignsovereigntyanddisrupting Philippine governmentstatedthatMarcos’actswere“clearlyinviolationofexistinglaw”).Giventhepolicy national governmenthasdisavowedtheconductofaformerofficial. these policiesareongoingandtranscendtheindividualdefendants.Thisisnotacasewhereexisting policies ofFalunGongrepressionimplementedbyDefendantsLiuandXia.AccordingtothePlaintiffs, “deposed dictator.”862F.2dat1360. contend otherwise.Thus,DefendantLiu’spromotioncontrastssharplytoFerdinandMarcos’statusas those policiesandactionsincludesthenationalpolicyofrepressingFalunGong.Plaintiffsdonot As notedabove,thePRCcontendsinitslettersubmittedtothisCourtthatactionsoutlawing 4. Finally, andmostimportantly,theessenceofsuitatbarisachallengetonationallydirected Whether theForeignStateWasActinginPublicInterest 51 e.g. torture,cruel,inhumanordegradingtreatment

Cf. HilaoII Thus, thisCourtcannotconcludethat , 25F.3dat1472(current United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 committed activitiesthatpose a“seriousthreattopublicsecurity,”suchas: (Translation ofChina’sStatement at¶2),andthatitsfounder,LiHongzhi, certainpractitionershave was bannedafterthePRCconcludedthatita“cult” andan“unregisteredillegalorganization,” Xia has filed,throughtheStateDepartment,astatement in oppositiontothiscourt’sadjudicationofthe rights claimsassertedmustbeassessedinthecontext ofthenineindividualsPlaintiffsbeforeCourt. a prisonlaborcamp).However,the action bythreeindividualleadplaintiffs(oneofwhomissuingonbehalfhermotherwhoincarcerated in before theCourt.The degrading treatmentundertheATCAarejusticiable. only certainclaims–tortureundertheTVPA,arbitrarydetentionATCA,andcruel,inhuman, or and numerousotherhumanrightsviolationsundertheATCA,asexplainedbelow,Courtconcludes that claim fordeclaratoryrelief. concludes thattheactofstatedoctrinebarsplaintiffs’claimfordamagesandinjunctivereliefbutnottheir as discussedbelow,thatjudgmentislimitedtotheindividualclaimsbroughtbyPlaintiffs,Court interfering withtheExecutiveBranchisminimalwerethisCourttoenterdeclaratoryjudgment,particularif, third factorcoalescetocounselstronglyagainstassertionofjurisdiction.However,becausetherisk government. Thatthissuitisbroughtagainstsittingofficialsaggravatesthatrisk.Hence,thesecondand act ofstatedoctrineistheriskinterferingwithconductforeignrelationsbycoordinatebranches instant case,thesecondandthirdfactorsweighstronglyagainstit.Asnotedabove,touchstoneof lawsuits.Asnotedabove,initsoppositionletter,the PRCcontends, • Moreover, althoughtheindividualDefendantofficials havenotansweredanddefaulted,thePRC At theoutset,itshouldbeemphasizedthatonlyclaimsofindividualPlaintiffsineachcaseare While thePlaintiffsinboth Although thefirstandfourth 5. VII. “[H]arassing andassaulting peoplewhohavedifferentviewswiththem,”; Summary Liu ANALYSIS OFPLAINTIFF’SHUMANRIGHTSCLAIMS suitisbroughtbysixindividuals.The Xia Sabbatino Liu Plaintiffshavenevermovedtocertifytheclass.Hence,human and Xia factorweighinfavorofexercisingjurisdictionoverthe caseshaveassertedclaimsoftortureundertheTVPA 52 Xia suitisbroughtnominallyasaclass inter alia , thattheFalunGong Liu and Viewed inthiscontext,thePlaintiffs’claimscanbedividedintotwocategories.First,therearewhichallegehuman

United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 racial, orreligiousgroup. Restatement §702,cmt.d.TheInternationalCriminal TribunalforYugoslavia the Restatement,isanact committed withtheintenttodestroyawholeorpart ofanational,ethnical, either largescaleorwidespread systematicpracticesonthepartofdefendant. Genocide,asdefinedby claims alsorequiredeterminationoffactsthatextend beyondtheircircumstancesoftheindividualPlaintiffs. government’s actioninoutlawingofFalunGongand thebonafidesofgovernment’spurpose.These detained, anyassertedjustificationfortheirarrestislegally irrelevant. legally responsibleforthecommissionofactscomplainedof,suchastorture,whilePlaintiffswere the GovernmentofChina’sStatement,at2.Asexplainedbelow,ifDefendantshereincommittedor are Plaintiffs .Iftheydid,thereasoncommittedatrocitiesisirrelevant.”Plaintiffs’MotiontoStrike whether Defendantofficialscarriedoutactsoftorture[]andothergrosshumanrightsviolationsagainst the issue thatneedstobeaddressedbytheCourt.sincesolequestionposedcomplaintsis their replytothePRC’sfiling,atleastwithrespecttheseclaims,“thelawfulnessofFalunGongisnot an beyond theindividualcircumstancesofdetentioneachPlaintiff.AsPlaintiffsassertin justification forthearrestanddetentionsofFLGsupporterspractitioners.Nordotheydependonfacts legality ofthePRC’sdecisiontooutlawFalunGongorbonafidesasserted cruel, inhumananddegradingtreatment,arbitrarydetention.Theseclaimsarenotdependentuponthe rights abusessuffereddirectlybytheindividualPlaintiffswhiledetainedChineseauthorities–torture, PRC contendsthatinoutlawingtheFalunGong,itacted“inaccordancewithlaw.” Id . ¶1.Thus,onJuly29,1999,thePRCissuedanarrestorderforLiHongzhi. Thus, forinstance,theclaimofgenocideassertedby the Second, therearethebroaderclaimsassertedby Plaintiffswhichdorequireassessmentofthe • • • • Instigating “self-immolationforthesakeof‘ascendingtoHeaven[,]”;and broadcasting ofsatelliteprograms[,]”; facilities, intentionallyattackingthenationalsatellitefacilitiesandjamming “[S]tealing statesecrets,sabotagingbroadcasting,televisionandotherpublic provoking andstirringuptroubles[,]”; Organizing “manyillegalmassgatherings,disruptingandblockingthetraffic Plotting andcommitting“trainderailingorsuicidebombings.” 53 Xia Plaintiffsrequiresafactualshowingof Id. Id. ¶2.Assuch,the United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Akayesu http://www.un.org/icty/sikirica/judgement/ IT-95-8-T, intent maybeinferredfrom, (Int’l probative ofthedefendant’s Energy, Inc. 1354-55 (N.D.Ga.2002); Gramajo 373 72. geographical area“wouldhardlyqualifyasa‘reasonably substantial’partofthe (1998). Thetermswidespreadandsystematichavebeendefinedasfollows: “widespread orsystematic”attackagainstacivilianpopulation.I.C.C.Statute,art.7,37I.L.M.999,1004 (Trial)(Rwa)). Acrimeagainsthumanityisspecificallydefined,inpart,asanactcommittedpartofa 581 (Int’lCrim.Trib.Rwanda,TrialChamberI,Sept.2,1998)1998WL1782077(UNICT actus reus beyond thecircumstancesofindividualplaintiffs.Thescopeadefendant’sactionsisprobative the 1385 (2002)(quotingthe“substantialnumber”languageinS.Exec.Rep.No.94-23). Intent ElementofGenocideandthe“QuantitativeCriterion,” 23, at1-2,6,18(1976); genocidal intentliesonlywhena“substantialnumber”ofvictimshavebeenkilled.S.Exec.Rep.No.94- Genocide Convention,theUnitedStatesSenatemadeasimilardeclaration.Thedeclaredthat available at Judgement CaseNo.IT-95-8-T,¶65(Int’lCrim.Trib.Yugoslavia,TrialChambers,Sept.3,2001) population ofthegroup”withinageographicareahasbeenphysicallydestroyed. (“ICTY”) heldthatgenocidalintentliesonlywhen“areasonablysubstantialnumberrelativetothetotal (E.D.La.1997), Crim.Trib.Rwanda,TrialChamberI,Sept.2,1998) 1998WL1782077(UNICT(Trial)(Rwa)).That 35 34 , ¶523. The claimofcrimesagainsthumanityassertedbythe Genocideisa“specificintentoffense.” Thus,forinstancetheITCYin , 886 elementofthecrime. ¶¶76-90(Int’lCrim. Trib. Yugoslavia,TrialChamber,Sept.3,2001) http://www.un.org/icty/sikirica/judgement/010903r98bis-e.pdf. , 244F.Supp. F.Supp.162,176,188(D.Mass.1995); on thebasisofacommonpolicyinvolvingsubstantialpublicorprivate may bedefinedasthoroughlyorganisedandfollowingaregularpattern directed againstamultiplicityofvictims.Theconcept“systematic” scale action,carriedoutcollectivelywithconsiderableseriousnessand The concept“widespread”maybedefinedasmassive,frequent,large aff’d see also 2d289,316(S.D.N.Y2003).Thus,thenatureand scopeofthepracticeis Sarei inter alia mens rea.Prosecutorv.Akayesu 197 F.3d161(5thCir.1999) , 221F.Supp.2dat Prosecutor v.Akayesu DavidAlonzo-Maizlish,Note, , the 010903r98bis-e.pdf)and thescaleofatrocitiescommitted. numberofvictims( Sikirica Beanalv. 54 1151; heldthattwopercentofapopulationincertain , Judgment,CaseNo.ICTR-96-4-T,¶¶568- Mehinovicv.Vuckovic ;Kadic Freeport-McMoran,Inc. Presbyterian Liu Prosecutor v.Sikirica, , Judgment, Plaintiffslikewiserequiresfindingoffacts In WholeorinPart:GroupRights,the 77N.Y.U.L.Rev.1369,1374n.16, , 70F.3dat244; ChurchofSudanv.Talisman CaseNo.ICTR-96-4-T,¶568 34 Beforeratifyingthe .population.” Prosecutor v.Sikirica , 198F.Supp.2d1322, 35 Judgment, CaseNo. see , 969F.Supp.362, alsoXuncaxv. available Sikirica at , , ¶ United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 (1981). African 213 Res. 55,35U.N.GAOR Supp. No.51;EuropeanConventionon the J. Int’lL.43,47-52(1999). Rutaganda Wiwa Plaintiffs beforetheCourt,broaderclaimswhich entailfindingsofsystemicandwidespreadpractices appropriate forjudgmentbydefaultintheinstantcases.Itdoessoseveralreasons. 327. Mehinovic 702 cmt.d; “committed withintenttodestroy”thetargetedgroupandcausingtheirphysicaldestruction.Restatement § finding thatratherthanattemptingtopursuealegitimatesocialgoal,itsperpetratorsengageinacts outlawing theFalunGong. of theICCPR,¶8. health ormorals,thefundamentalrightsandfreedomsofothers.”GeneralComment22underArticle 18 Political Rights(“ICCPR”)issubjecttorestrictionsthatare“necessaryprotectpublicsafety,order, protected undertheUniversalDeclarationofHumanRightsandInternationalCovenantonCivil and detentionoftheirpractitioners’supporters’freedoms.Therighttofreedomreligionbelief an assessmentofthegovernment’sjustificationforactionstakenagainstFalunGong,includingarrest GAOR Supp.(No10)at94,U.N.Doc.A/51/10(1996)). Akayesu EliminationofAllForms IntoleranceandofDiscriminationBasedonReligion andBelief,art.1(3),G.A. U.N.T.S.221;American ConventiononHumanRights,Jan.7,1970,art.12(3), 1144U.N.T.S.123; v.RoyalDutchPetroleumCo. CharterofHumanandPeoples’ Rights,June27,1981,art.8,OAUDoc.CAB/LEG/67/3/Rev. 5 37 36 First, incontrasttoclaimswhichrequiretheresolutionofspecificfactsparticularindividual The CourtconcludesonlythefirstsetofnarrowerclaimspertainingtoindividualPlaintiffsare Moreover, theclaimsalleginggenocideandinterferencewithfreedomofreligionbeliefrequire , ¶580(citedtheReportonInternationalLawCommissiontoGeneralAssembly,51U.N.

See alsoTachionav.Mugabe See alsoProsecutorv.Rutaganda, , 198F.Supp.2dat1354-55; ); DarrylRobinson, Kadic preconceived planorpolicy. formally asthepolicyofastate.Theremust,however,besomekind resources. Thereisnorequirementthatthispolicymustbeadopted , 70F.3dat244; 37 Asnotedabove,thePRCassertssuchjustificationindefenseofitsofficialactions See generally Defining “CrimesAgainstHumanity”attheRome see alsoBeanal , 2002WL319887,at*10(S.D.N.Y.Feb.28, 2002) (citing , 234F. Translation ofChina’sStatement.Genocidelikewiserequiresa Sarei , 221F.Supp.2dat1151; 39 I.L.M. Supp.2d401,428-29(S.D.N.Y.2002);Declaration on 55 , 969F.Supp.at373; 557,571(CaseNo.ICTR-96-3-T,May2000); 36 HumanRights,Nov.4,1950, art.15(1), Talisman Xuncax , 886F.Supp.at188; Conference , 244F.Supp.2dat , 93Am. United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 the reportmakesnomention ofhumanrightsviolationsinBeijing. Mongolia, Zhejiang,Hebei, Shaanxi,Sichuan,Wuhan,Shanghai,Xinjiang,Guangxi describing does wrongdoings. rely unknown, at in arrested anddetainedoutsideLiaoNing.Theaffidavit provides:(1) Province. Inparticular,at potential allegations directedatothers. the nationalgovernment)beyondtheircontrolandwhohavelessincentivetodefendcontrovert the defaultingdefendantsarenotinapositiontoadmitfactspertainingconductandpolicy( those ofthenationalgovernment.Judgmentbydefaultisnotareliableprocessfordeterminingfactswhere broad andimplicateconductpoliciesofothersbeyondthedefendant’scontrol,includinginthiscase admitted andtrueifleftunansweredunopposed,thereislessreasontodosowhentheallegationsare 1978). Heidenthal admissible evidencesubmittedbythemovingpartyareusuallytreatedastrue. previously noted,onceadefaultisentered,theallegationsofcomplainttogetherwithcompetent China, butagainsttwolocalofficialsissignificantinthecontextofdefaultjudgmentatissueherein.As local levelsofgovernment.Thatthesecasesarenotformallybroughtagainstthenationalgovernment bar. Theinstantcasesareproceedingasdefaultjudgmentsagainsttwomid-levelofficialswhoserveat adjudicate, thereliabilityofprocessdeterminingsuchfactsareseverelycompromisedincasesat judicial inquirywellbeyondtheconcretefactualallegationspertainingtoindividualclaims. the FalunGongwouldrequireCourttodelveintowhatisakinlegislativefacts.Itentaila determination intothebonafides,legitimacyandsubstantiationofgovernment’spurposeinsuppressing facts beyondthattowhichindividualPlaintiffsmaycompetentlytestify.Moreover,claimsrequirea greatly enlargesthescopeoffactualinquirythatmustproperlybeundertaken;wouldinvolve GonjibeforebeingtransferredtoaLiaoNingfacility, (2)SongJinyingwasarrestedinPaotaianddetained Wafangdian,(3)Case15wasarrestedbyHeshijiao police,(4)LiuShan’sandLiZhi’swhereaboutsare ontheStateDepartment’sreporthumanrights violationsinChinaasevidenceofthedefendants’ notfocusspecificallyon the conductofgovernmentofficialsinBeijingandLiao Ning.Inadditionto

38 While therenormallyisgoodreasonforassumingthatallegationsdirectedagainstadefendantare classmembers,thearrestsanddetentionstookplace in jurisdictionsoutsideBeijingandtheLiaoNing While broadfactualdeterminationsarenotinherentlybeyondthecompetenceofCourtto Forinstance,innumerouscasescitedbythe and(5)MiaoJunjie’sZhengYuyine’splacesof arrest wereundisclosed.The theconditionsinLiaoNing, thereportalsohighlightsconditionsinHeilongjian, Tianjin,Inner , 826F.2d915,917-18(9thCir.1987); However,thereportmerelylistsregionsinChina wherehumanrightshavebeenviolatedand leasteightallegedtorturevictimslistedinthe 38

56 Danning v.Lavine Xia Plaintiffsasevidenceofabusessufferedby WangYoujiwasarrestedanddetained Xia , 572F.2d1386,1388(9thCir. unswornaffidavitmayhavebeen TeleVideo Sys.,Inc.v. , and Chongqing.Infact, Xia e.g. Plaintiffsalso thatof United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 matter thescopeandnature ofhumanrightsviolationsinChina. allegedly provide trustworthy. adequate Costa F. fairness ofIraniancourts), 1406, Corp. records exceptiontothe Gong Department Bache &Co.,Inc. an excluding unswornaffidavits v. RexallCorp. Hal RoachStudios,Inc.v.RichardFeinerandCo.,Inc., Larez United Statesv.Valdez-Soto Idaho v.Wright inadmissible (amen provided Plaintiffs’ statements described inform is notaccompaniedbyanyswornstatementastoitsauthenticity,accuracy,ortheotherfactorswhichwould by unidentifiedpersons Liaoning Notarized as thatpertaining of thePRC’sofficialdecisiontooutlawFalunGong,itimpliesadirectchallengegovernmental default judgmentonthebroaderclaims. strong policyfavoringadecisiononthemerits( the potentialunreliabilityofmakingbroadfactualfindingsbydefaultinthesepeculiarcircumstances, default judgment( disputes concerningmaterialfacts,afactorinformingthecourt’sdiscretionindecidingwhethertoenter are beyondthattowhichtheindividualplaintiffscompetentallegeandtestify. Supp.2d719,735,737,740(E.D.La.2002)(relying onannualreportsthefairnessofcourtsin interestintheoutcome); practitioners.TheStateDepartment’sannualhuman rights reportshavebeenheldtofallwithinthepublic Rica,Honduras,andtheRepublicofPhilippines in decidingwhetherthosecourtscanprovidean 1411(9thCir.1995)(relyingontheannualreports in grantingsummaryjudgmentontheissueof v.CityofLosAngeles v.Citibank ded opinion)(statementtakenbysocialworkertrainedtoelicitdescriptionsofsexualabusewas itsadmissibilityasevidence.Assuch,itisnotcompetentadmissibleevidencetoprovetheconduct thesamequalityofevidence asthespecificanddirectevidencesubstantiating theparticularabuses The 39 Furthermore, totheextentadjudicationofbroaderhumanrightsclaimsrequiresanassessment Province”cataloginghumanrightsviolationssufferedbyothers.Itappearstobeasummarycompiled sufferedbytheindividual Plaintiffs. Thereporthasgreaterprobativevalueinestablishing asageneral underFed.R.Evid.803-804. Moreover, defaultjudgmentisalessreliableprocessforfindingfactswherethescopeof formfortheplaintiff’sclaims). Theannualhumanrightsreportshavealso beenfoundtobe variousclaimsofhumanrightsviolations.Theydonotfallwithinanyhearsayexceptioncategories Inthisrespect,theevidenceofspecific therein.Fed.R.Evid.602-603.Furthermore,thestatementcontainsinadmissiblehearsay InformationCompiledbyFalunGongonPersecution,TortureandExecutionofPractitionersin becausetheyareunswornout-of-courtstatementstakenforthepurposesofsubstantiating whichfindshumanrightsviolationsbythegovernment ofChinadirected Plaintiffsalsorelyonreportssuchasanannualhuman rightsreportissuedbytheU.S.State hearsaylackingguaranteesoftrustworthiness), See Bridgeway , 789 , tothenamedPlaintiffs.The 497U.S.805,826-27(1990); Eitel, supra , 381F.Supp.71,100n.1(N.D.Cal.1974). , 201F.3d134,143-44(2dCir.2000); F.2d1315,1316(9thCir.1985)(thecourtdidnotabuseitsdiscretionarypowerby throughsomeundefinedprocess,theevidentiarybasisofwhichisunclear.Indeed,it hearsayruleunderFed.R.Evid.803(8),andisthus admissible. cert. denied preparedspecificallytosupportaparty’scasebyindividualswhoarguablyhave United Statesv.Satterfield , 201F.3dat144.Whilethe reportsmaybeadmissibleevidence,theydonot , 946F.2d630,643n.6(9thCir.1991)(uncorroborated , 782F.2dat1471-72)ismagnifiedunderthesecircumstances.Andgiven , 31F.3d1467,1471(9thCir.1994), , 516U.S.989 See Webbv.Lewis Xia Eitel Plaintiffshavesubmittedadocumententitle“AdditionalUn- abusessufferedbyotherindividualsisnotnearlyasreliable Padilla v.Terhune , 782F.2dat1471-72)alsocounselsagainstentering 57 (1995); , 572F.2d687, 896 F.2d1542,1552(9thCir. cert. denied see also Canales Martinezv.DowChem.Co. , 44F.3d1387,1390-93(9thCir.1994)

Bank MelliIranv.Pahlavi cert. denied , 309F.3d614,620(9thCir.2002); , 691(9thCir.1978); 514U.S.1128(1995); , 514U.S. 39 interalia Thepossibilityof unswornstatement); 1989); See 1113(1995); Bridgeway at Jackson theFalun , 58 Bulthius see F.3d , 219 also Xia v. United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 China inResponsetoQuestions PosedbytheCourt,at5(hereinafter“ Plaintiffs’ ReplytotheState Department’sStatementofInterestand bytheGovernmentof United StatesDepartment ofStateandGovernmentthePeople’sRepublic ofChina,at1-2,13; Strike theGovernmentofChina’sStatements,at2; matter ofconcerntothisCourt,andisnotavalidbasis forchallengingthislitigation.”Plaintiffs’Motionto Falun Gongspiritualmovementandtheactivitiesof itspractitionersandsupportersinChinaneednotbea commission ofhumanrightsviolations.Asnotedabove, thePlaintiffshavestatedthat“thelawfulnessof adjudication ofthelawfulnessPRC’sdecisionto outlaw FalunGongandthereasonsforalleged countries”). environmental tortsandabusesoccurwithinthesovereign’sbordersdonotaffectneighboring inflict humanrightsviolationsandgenocide]carriespersuasiveforceespeciallywhenthealleged Cir. 1999)(“theargumenttoabstainfrominterferinginasovereign’senvironmentalpractices[alleged within aforeignstate’sownborders”) state doctrineimplicated“whencourtsareaskedtojudgethelegalityorproprietyofpublicactscommitted (1990) (emphasisadded). own territory.” were thecourtrequiredtoruleonlegalityofan“ an “actofstate”raisingjusticiabilityproblems,theactstatedoctrineisevenmoresquarelyimplicated concludes thatevenunofficialandpubliclydisclaimedpolicy( underpinning theactofstatedoctrine.Asdiscussedabove( sanctioned andjustifiedbythegovernmentofPRC,suchanadjudicationimplicatescoreconcerns the foreignsovereignty. fall moresquarelywithinthebarofFSIAthansuitschallengingconductunauthorizedbyofficiallaw brought nominallyagainstindividualofficials. constitute thepracticalequivalenceofasuitagainstgovernmentChina,eventhoughsuitsare policy ofthePRC.Asdiscussedabove( Plaintiffs appeartoimplicitlyacknowledgethedifficultiesthatwouldinhereinCourt’s Finally, totheextentCourtisrequiredpassonlegalityandproprietyofactionsofficially W.S. Kirkpatrick&Co.,Inc.v.Envtl.TectonicsCorp.,Int’l See Liuv.Republic.ofChina . Cf.Beanalv.Freeport-McMoran,Inc. see SectionV, See Parkv.Shin see alsoLiu official 58 supra , 892F.2d1419,1432(9thCir.1989)(actof actofaforeignsovereignperformedwithinits see e.g. ), suchachallengewould,insubstance, , 313F.3dat1144.Assuch,theseclaims SectionVI, Plaintiffs’ResponsetoStatementsby oftorture)theforeignstateconstitutes Xia Plaintiffs’ReplytoState supra , 493U.S.400,405-06 , 197F.3d161,167(5th ), althoughtheCourt Xia United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 these laws.TheTVPAdefinestortureasfollows: claims undertheTVPA.Plaintiffs’allegationsaresufficienttostateoftorturewithinmeaning of A. Accordingly, theCourtbelowanalyzesthesethreeclaims. torture, cruel,inhuman,anddegradingtreatment,arbitrarydetentionoftheindividualPlaintiffs. however, thattheotherbroaderhumanrightsclaimswouldnotrequiresuchanadjudication. to claimsoftorture,arbitrarydetention,andcruelinhumantreatment.TheCourtdoesnotagree, presented.” Plaintiffs’MotiontoStrike,at2.TheCourtagreeswiththesestatements irrelevant, andneednotbeconsideredasmaterialtoadjudicationofthecausesactionthathavebeen Response toChina’sStatements,at13. prohibition ofFalunGongprovidedinChina’sStatementsareimmaterialtothecase.” Department’s Statement”). The The TortureClaims(TVPA) The aboveconcernscounselinfavorofadjudicatingonlytheindividualizedhumanrightsclaims Xia profoundly thesensesorpersonality.” mind alteringsubstancesorotherprocedurescalculated todisrupt severe physicalpainorsuffering,theadministration orapplicationof (D) thethreatthatanotherindividualwillimminently besubjectedtodeath, (C) thethreatofimminentdeath;or disrupt profoundlythesensesorpersonality; application, ofmindalteringsubstancesorotherprocedures calculatedto (B) theadministrationorapplication,threatened or suffering; (A) theintentionalinflictionorthreatenedof severephysicalpainor resulting from– (2) mentalpainorsufferingreferstoprolongedharmcausedby any reasonbasedondiscriminationofkind;and committed, intimidatingorcoercingthatindividualathirdperson,for individual orathirdpersonhascommittedissuspectedofhaving person informationoraconfession,punishingthatindividualforanact individual forsuchpurposesasobtainingfromthatorathird lawful sanctions),whetherphysicalormental,isintentionallyinflictedonthat (other thanpainorsufferingarisingonlyfrominherentin,incidentalto, offender’s custodyorphysicalcontrol,bywhichseverepainsuffering (1) theterm‘torture’meansanyact,directedagainstanindividualin Plaintiffsandtwoofthe

Moreover,Plaintiffspositthat“[t]hejustificationsfortheChinesegovernment’s

Liu They alsostatethat“thereasontheycommittedtheatrocitiesis Plaintiffsallegetheyweresubjecttotortureandthusassert 59

insofar astheyrelate Liu Plaintiff’s United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Nations. ..”)(citationsomitted). United on 249(IV)(C). by thevictimorvictim’slegalrepresentativea beneficiaryinawrongfuldeathaction.”S.Rep.102- reprinted any individualwhosubjectsapersontotortureorextrajudicial killing.”H.R.Rep.No.102-367(III) provides thattheTVPA“authorizesFederalcourts tohearcasesbroughtbyoronbehalfofavictim No. 102-367(III) alleged tortureand(2)wheretheplaintiffbringsaclaimonbehalfofdeceasedtorturedvictim.H.R.Rep. B. she mustestablishherstandingtosueundertheTVPA. on herparent,whoiscurrentlyincarceratedintheMasanjiaLaborCampLiaoNingProvince.Assuch, not allegethatsheisavictimoftortureherself.Rather,seeksrelieffortheharmhasbeeninflicted (1987) (quotingthesamedefinitionoftorture). Available at which hasbeenratifiedbytheUnitedStates, Convention AgainstTorture,etc.(“CAT”),previouslymentionedinPartIV, 28 U.S.C.§1350note3(b).TheTVPA’sdefinitionoftorturemirrorsthattheUnitedNations April18,1988,andtheSenate ratifieditonOctober27,1990..TheConvention becamebindingonthe StatesinNovemberof1994 afterPresidentClintondeliveredtheratifyingdocuments totheUnited 40 There aretwobasesforstandingundertheTVPA:(1)whereplaintiffisadirectvictimof Standing forPlaintiffB A thresholdissueofstandingmustbeaddressedwithrespecttoonePlaintiff.

in Li v.Ashcroft 1992 U.S.C.C.A.N. http://193.194.138.190/html/menu3/b/h_cat39.htm. from, inherentinorincidentaltolawfulsanctions. acting inanofficialcapacity.Itdoesnotincludepainorsufferingarisingonly or withtheconsentacquiescenceofapublicofficialotherperson of anykind,whensuchpainorsufferingisinflictedbyattheinstigation or coercinghimathirdperson,foranyreasonbasedondiscrimination person hascommittedorissuspectedofhavingcommitted,intimidating person informationoraconfession,punishinghimforanacthethird inflicted onapersonforsuchpurposesasobtainingfromhimorthird which severepainorsuffering,whetherphysicalmental,isintentionally For thepurposesofthisConvention,term‘torture’meansanyactby reprinted , 312F.3d.1094, in 1992 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 87.Similarly,theSenateReportprovidesthat TVPA“permitssuit 1102(9thCir.2002)(“The UnitedStatessignedtheConvention 40 definestortureasfollows: 84, 87;S.Rep.102-249(IV)(C).TheHouseReport 60 See also Restatement§702cmt.g supra . TheConvention, Xia PlaintiffBdoes United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 359787. infra plaintiff cannotrecoverdamages basedoninjury not run.28U.S.C.§1350note2. plaintiff hasexhausted“adequateandavailableremedies,”(4)thattheten-yearstatuteoflimitations has or apparentauthority,coloroflaw,”(2)thatthedefendantsubjectedplaintifftotorture,(3) torture undertheTVPA,eachplaintiffmustshowfollowing:(1)thatdefendantacted“underactual A andC–sufficientlysupporttheirclaimsoftortureundertheTVPA.Toestablishacauseactionfor C. subject toanextrajudicialkilling,andPlaintiffBherselfdoesnotallegesheisatorturevictim. Xia not citedanypersuasiveauthoritytothecontrary. recover onbehalfoftheirrelativesfor.torture.” Similarly, in Cabello v.Fernandez-Larios, surviving legalrepresentativeofa deceased torturevictims.Thecourtin Larios victims. PlaintiffBhasnostandingtobringanactionfortortureonbehalfofherparent.Herparentwasnot footnote 7, and 41 41 The factsofferedbytheremainingplaintiffswhoasserttortureclaims–DoesIandIIPlaintiffs Legal SufficiencyofthePlaintiffs’ClaimsTorture Accordingly, theCourtconcludesthatabsentarulingfromNinthCircuitholdingtocontrary, The NinthCircuithasnotruledonthesecondbasisforstanding, Regardingsuitsbroughtonbehalfofothers,twodistrictcourtcases– In Xuncax v.Gramajo Xuncax Doe en banc v.UnocalCorp., , thecourtprovidedthat“undereitherfederalorstatelaw,[the]plaintiffscannot reviewisnowpendingin thatcasesotheearlierrulingwaswithdrawn.2003 WL 205 F.Supp.2d1325,1334-1335(S.D.Fla.2002)(emphasisadded). –suggestthattheTVPAallowsonlyclaimsbroughtonbehalfof deceased the Cabello NinthCircuitheldthatwhere theactionisnotaclassaction, torturevictimtorecoveronbehalfofthevictim’sestate.” provided that“[thelegislature]intendedtoallowthe toanother(2002WL31063976 at*16),butasdiscussed Xuncax, 61 886 F.Supp.at192.Plaintiffshereinhave i.e. tosueonbehalfoftortured Cabello v.Fernandez- United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 met. detentions. that PRCpoliceandsecurity forcesconductedtheallegedtortureduringplaintiffs’ arrestsand offender’s custodyorphysicalcontrol.”28U.S.C. § 1350note3(b)(1).Bothcomplaintshereinprovide rising totheleveloftorture. 28 U.S.C.§1350note3(b)(1). acts risingtotheleveloftorture.Asnotedabove,TVPAdefinestortureas: involvement ineachplaintiff’sallegedtorture. commander responsibility.Assuch,thefactspleadedproperlysupportafindingofgovernmental responsible fortheirsubordinates’conductunderbothAmericanandinternationallawprincipleson discussed underSectionVIII 13-24 & brought against“purelyprivategroups.” prove aclaim.”H.R.RepNo.102-367(III) House Reportprovidesthat“theplaintiffmustestablishsomegovernmentalinvolvementinthetortureto § 1350note2.Withregardstothephrase“underactualorapparentauthority,coloroflaw,” For anacttoconstitutetorture,itmustfirstbeconducted whiletheplaintiffwasunder“the Does IandIIPlaintiffsAChaveeachoffered factssufficienttosupportafindingofacts After establishingthestateactorrequirement,plaintiffsmustshowthattheyweresubjectedto 2. Both complaintsprovidethatPRCpoliceandsecurityforcesconductedthetorture. Each plaintiffmustfirstestablishthatgovernmentalactorscarriedouttheallegedtorture.28U.S.C. 1. Xia Liu Compl.¶¶9,11. a. Compl.¶¶13-25& Subjected toTortureWhileUndertheActor’sCustody orPhysicalControl any kind. coercing thatindividualorathirdperson,for.discriminationof information oraconfession,punishingthatindividual..,intimidating inflicted onthatindividualforsuchpurposesasobtaining. physical control,bywhichseveredpainorsuffering..,isintentionally [A]ny act,directedagainstanindividualintheoffender’scustodyor Acts RisingtotheLevelofTorture Color ofLaworAuthority

on CommanderResponsibility,bothDefendantsLiuandXiacanbeheld

The actswerecommittedundercolorofauthority.Furthermore,as Xia Compl.¶¶9-11,25-27.Therefore, thefirstelementoftortureis Id.

reprinted 62 in 1992 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 87.TheTVPAbarssuits Liu Compl.¶¶ United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 treatment.” 8C.F.R.§208.18(a)(5). suffering, 1988 application oftortureunderCATinformstheinterpretation oftortureundertheTVPA. extensively fromCATandthusthetwostatutesmay beread danger ofbeingsubjectedtotorture.8U.S.C.§1231. BecausetheTVPAdefinitionoftortureborrows extradition ofanindividualwheretherearesubstantial groundsforbelievingtheindividualwouldbein See also Ashcroft, Foreign AffairsReformandRestructuringActof1988(“FARRA”)whichimplementsCAT. has, however,inthecontextofpersonsseekingrelieffromdeportation,interpreted“torture”under lasting, orheinoustheagony,morelikelyitistobetorture.” is thedegreeofpainandsufferingtorturerintendedtoactuallydidinflict–“[t]hemoreintense, Jamahiriya tying uporhanginginpositionsthatcauseextremepain.’” example, sustainedsystematicbeating,applicationofelectriccurrentstosensitivepartsthebody,and original). Ratherthetermis“‘usuallyreservedforextreme,deliberateandunusuallycruelpractices, instance ofexcessiveforceusedagainstprisoners,istorture”undertheTVPA. considered toconstitutetorture.’” that theterm‘torture’bothconnotesandinvokes.” Convention andtheTVPAissufficientlyextremeoutrageoustowarrantuniversalcondemnation (D.C. Cir.2002).“Theseverityrequirementiscrucialtoensuringthattheconductproscribedby Punishment, United NationsConventionAgainstTortureandOtherCruel,InhumanorDegradingTreatment suffering. 28U.S.C.§1350,note3(b)(1).TheTVPAdefinitionborrowsextensivelyfromthe1984 definestorturesimilarlyto theTVPA.Itrequires, 42 The NinthCircuithasnotyetaddressedthecontoursofdefinitiontortureunderTVPA.It In ordertoconstitute“torture”undertheTVPA,allegedactsmustinflict“severe”painor

whetherphysicalormental.” 8C.F.R.§208.18(a)(1).Itis“anextremeform ofcruelandinhuman Wang v.Ashcroft JusticeDepartmentregulations interpretingtheForeignAffairsReformand Restructuring Actof 312 F.3d1094,1103(9th , 326F.3d230,234(D.C.Cir.2003)( supra b. Severe PainorSuffering (“CAT”). , 320F.3d130,133(2d Pricev.SocialistPeople’sLibyanArabJamahiriya Id. Cir. 2002); (citationomitted).Accordingly,“[n]otallpolicebrutality,notevery Al-Saherv.INS Id. quoting Price, 63 Cir.2003). inter alia “‘[O]nly actsofacertaingravityshallbe Simpsonv.SocialistPeople’sLibyanArab in

pari materia Price

, theintentionalinflictionof “severepainor FARRAprohibitsdeportationor , 268F.3d1143,1147(9th 294 F.3dat92-93).Thecrucialissues , 294F.3dat92. , thecourts’interpretationand Id . at93(emphasisin , 294F.3d82,92 42 See Liv. Cir. 2001). United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 what hadhappened.”). 161, 166(5th permit theplaintifftoamend thecomplaint. Nor wasthereinformationaboutweaponsusedtocarry themout. no informationaboutthefrequency,durationandparts ofthebodyatwhichbeatingswereaimed. determine whethertheseverityrequirementsfortorture hadbeenmet. allegations thatprisonguards“kick[ed],club[bed],and beat”theplaintiffwassufficientlydetailedto the courttoassessseverityofmistreatment. In back withwireandthreateningherdeathconstitutedtorture. detaining thevictim,forcinghertoundress,bindinglegsandarms,whippingon the courtcharacterizedbeatingas“adeviantpracticecarriedoutbyoneroguemilitaryofficial.” Although thedecisionwasbasedprimarilyonlackofsystemicevidencesuggestinglikelihoodtorture, which hewascaptured,beaten,kickedandpunchedunconscious. proven alikelihoodthathewouldbesubjecttotortureifreturnedbasedonpreviousescapeattemptin form ofcruel,inhumantreatment.” village birthcontroldepartment. established torturewhenshewasforcedtoendureapregnancyexaminationwhichlastedhalfanhouratthe Saher.” Id.at1147. concluded “[t]heseactionswerespecificallyintendedbyofficialstoinflictseverephysicalpainonAl- subjected toseverebeatingsandburnedwithcigarettesoveran810dayperiod. hands, feetandathickelectricalcable.268F.3dat1145,1147.Duringsecondarrest,hewas for amonthduringhisfirstarrest,whichtimehewastiedandblindfoldedbeatenbyattackers’ in theUnitedStates,hadbeensubjecttotortureIraqwherehesubjectedsustainedbeatings In ordertoestablishtorture,theplaintiffmustfactsanddetailsspecificenoughpermit In In In contrast,in In Abebe-Jira v.Negewo Wang, Al-Saher Cir. 1999)(plaintiffsasserting tortureclaimstoprovide“adequatefactualspecificity asto theSecondCircuitheldthatpetitioner,whodesertedChinesemilitary,hadnot , theNinthCircuitfoundthatpetitioner,anativeandcitizenofIraqseekingasylum Li v.Ashcroft

312 F.3dat1103 , 72F.3d844,845(11thCir.1996),theEleventhCircuitheldthat Id. , theNinthCircuitheldthatapetitionerseekingasylumhadnot Id. at94. . Thecourtfoundtheexaminationwasnotan“extreme 64 See Beanalv.Freeport-McMoran, Inc. Price , theD.C.Circuitruledplaintiff’sgeneral Id. Wang Thecourtremandedthecaseto Price , 320F.3dat136,144. , 214F.3dat93.Therewas Id. Thecourt , 197F.3d Id.

United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 “prolonged” mentalharmthat iscausedbythethreatthateithervictimoranother willbeimminently not stand,sitorevendrink water,causinghimtobeneardeathfromdehydration. being savagelybeaten. in theheadbyariflebutt,wasrepeatedlykickedand punchedseverely,andwasforcedtowitnessothers already beingtreatedforapainfulbowelobstruction whenhewaskidnappedfromahospital,gashed order toforcehimconfessbeinganIsraelispy. tortured forpurposesofFSIAwhereterroristsinflicted severepainonplaintiffoverafour-dayperiodin consciousness. hitting theplaintiffonheadwithabaton. One plaintiffwasalsoforcedtoplaya“gameofhorse”inwhichsoldierrodeontheplaintiff’sbackwhile course ofthephysicalbeating,eachplaintiffsustainedeitherbrokenribsorfingers. blows totheface,genitals,andotherareas”untiltheyalmostloseconsciousness. The plaintiffsin finding ofphysicalandmentaltortureundertheTVPA.198F.Supp.2d1322,1346(N.D.Ga.2002). torture. beaten, possiblysubjectedtogruesomephysicaltorture,anddeniedessentialmedicaltreatment”was conditions, deniedsufficientfoodandwater,subjectedtoconstantdeliberatedemoralization,physically blindfolded him,andthreatenedhimwithelectrocutionbyplacingwiresonhistesticles. windows, water,atoilet,andbed. added). Theplaintiffin of ‘torture’intheTortureVictimsProtectionAct.”97F.Supp.2d38,45(D.D.C.2000)(emphasis deprivation ofbasichumannecessities[allegedbythevictim]are The districtcourtin In ordertoestablishmental (incontrasttophysical)torture,theTVPArequires ashowingof In In Two yearslater,thesamedistrictcourtfoundthatbeing“heldforfourteenmonthsincruel,inhuman A numberoflowercourtcaseshaveaddressedthecontourstortureactionableunderTVPA. Surette v.IslamicRepublicofIran Cronin v.IslamicRepublicofIran Mehinovic v.Vuckovic Mehinovic Id. Dalibertiv.RepublicofIraq Id. Daliberti at226-28.Thebeatingscompoundedhismedicalcondition sothathecould allegedthatBosnianSerbpoliceofficerssubjectedthemtorepeated“kicksand allegedthathewasconfinedforuptoelevendayswithoutlights, , thecourtfoundthatplaintiff’sallegationssufficientlysupporta Id. Ononeoccasion,prisonguardsalsostrippedhimnaked, Id. , 231F.Supp.2d260,264(D.D.C.2002). , 283F.Supp.2d222(D.D.C.2002),theplaintiffwas Anotherplaintiffwashungupsideuntilhealmostlost foundthat“directattacksonapersonand. 65 Id. at233-34(citingTVPA).Plaintiff,whowas more than enough tomeetthedefinition Id. Id. at1345.Duringthe Id.

Id. at1346. United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 center, shewasphysically beatenandkickedintheheadchestuntilshelost consciousness. They alsokickedherwith theirbootsastheytransportedhertothedetention center. repeatedly slappedherinthe faceandonherears,causingtotemporarily lose herhearing.” Liu Id. of theinterrogationroomtohercell. During oneofthebrutalsessions,shesustainedhead injuriessoseverethattheguardshadtodragherout through needlesplacedinherbody.” sustained atleast20daysofphysicalbeatingsduringwhichshewasalsosubjectedto“electricshocks from theirbrutaltreatmentbyBeijingpoliceforcesandprisonguards. agony. sustained beatingsoveralengthyperiod.Somehavealleged,inaddition,heinousmethodsofinflicting descriptions ofactsthatexceed“gardenvariety”excessiveforce.Theyeachhaveallegedfactsshowing the courtmustassessintensity,durationandheinousnessofagonyinflicted. or otherweaponsmethodsdesignedtoinflictagonydoesconstitutetorture.Asthecourtin constitute torture,sustainedsystematicbeatingsoruseofparticularlyheinousactssuchaselectricalshock discussed above,makeclearthatwhileasingleinstanceof“gardenvariety”excessiveforcemaynot regulatory definitionsexpressedintheTVPA,CATandFARRA,togetherwithinterpretivecaselaw F. Supp.2dat1346. psychological harmasaresultoftheordealstheysufferedathandsdefendantandothers.”198 he inflictedorduringgamesof‘Russianroulette’”andthat“eachplaintiffcontinuestosufferlong-term complaint allegedthattheplaintiffs“fearedtheywouldbekilledby[thedefendant]duringbeatings does notdefinethelengthoftimerequiredforafinding“prolonged”mentalharm.The subjected todeathorseverephysicalpainsuffering.28U.S.C.§1350note3(b)(2).TheTVPA ¶15. Compl.¶¶17-25.WhenDoeIIwasarrestedata peaceful demonstration,“[p]oliceofficers Beijing securityforcessubjectedDoeIItoasimilar course ofbrutalityduringher32-daydetention. In particular,bothDoesIandIIspecificallyallegethatseverementalphysicalharmresulted Applied tothecasesatbar,DoesIandIIPlaintiffsAChaveallprovidedspecific While theprecisecontoursof“torture”underTVPAmaybeill-defined,statutoryand Id. Id. ¶¶ 14.Theseverebeatingcausedhertolosetheability toeat. ¶¶ 13-15.Eachsessionlastedatleastthreehours. 66 Liu Compl.¶¶13-25.DoeI Price Id. , 294F.3dat93. Mehinovic At thedetention Id. Price Id. Id. ¶¶ 13-15. ¶20. ¶ 18. noted, United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 prison guardsbrutallybeat himwithanelectricbaton,aleatherbelt,andironchains untilhebledand periods ofdetentiontotaling 78days.ConfidentialAffidavitsof she wasontheDiLao. The guardsalsosealedhermouthwithadhesivetape topreventherfromrecitingFalunGongbeliefswhile “rusted tortureinstruments”wereusedtogrindthedetainees’ wristsandanklesuntilthedetaineesbled. criminals thathadnotbeenuse[d]sincetheCultural Revolution.” body. days andtwonights. beaten. Ononeoccasion,shewasdeprivedoffood,water,sleep,andtheusetoiletfacilitiesforthree Xia she wasarrestedtwiceanddetainedforatotalof104daysfollowingthearrests.ConfidentialAffidavits of direct attacksandweredeprivedofbasicnecessitiesforlongperiodstime. period oftimethantheordealDoesIandII.Likeplaintiffin support afindingofseverepainandsuffering.Infact,PlaintiffsAC’sordealspannedoverlonger hemorrhage” anddeprivedofmedicaltreatment. friend. subjected hertomentaltorture.Shewasforcedwitnesstheguards’severemistreatmentofaclose “purple andblackbruises.” felt “obligedtoremoveherfromthecell.” injuries fromthatbeatingwassoseveretheguardhadtostopaftertwentyminutesandeven allowed oneofhercellmatestobeatseverelyinexchangeforareducedsentence. a tubethatwasinsertedthroughhernose,causing“severepain.” interrogating her.” physical beating.“Severalguardstookherintoanotherroom,tieddowntoabed,andbegan unconscious, shewasstrippednaked. At onepoint,“fourfemaleofficerspulledherhairandhitheadagainstthefloor.” Plaintiffs.Duringherdetention,shewashandcuffedback-to-backwithotherprisoners,andphysically Id. Id. Like PlaintiffA,C wasalsophysicallybeatenbytheLiaoNingProvince policeduringtwo Like the ¶ 20.Her“friendwassexuallyassaultedinherfriend’svaginalarea,causingthefriendto She wasalsoplacedonatorturedevicecalled“DiLao,” whichis“atorturedeviceforcapital Liu Id. Plaintiffs, Id. ¶ 21.Shefurtherallegesthatwhensherefusedtoanswer,they“pumpedliquid”into Id. Asaresult,shewasforcedtodefecateonherselfand“endure[d]thefilth”her Id. Xia ¶22.Inadditiontothephysicalbrutality,Beijingprisonofficialsalso PlaintiffsAandChavealsoallegedfactsthatarelegallysufficientto Id. Id. Upon regainingherconsciousness,shewassubjectedtomore ¶ 24.Theseverephysicalbeatingsleftherbodymarredwith Id.

67 Xia Id. Daliberti Plaintiffs.Onatleastone occasion, PlaintiffAfurtherstatesthatthe Id. Ononeoccasion,aguard , the Xia Xia PlaintiffAallegesthat Id. Plaintiffssustained Id. While shewas ¶ 24.Her Id. United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 government officialsinboth casesactedwiththerequisiteintenttointimidate,punish anddiscriminate prisoners andnotallowed tosleep.” denounce thepracticeofFalun Gong,hewas“hungfromwaterpipesforthree day,handcuffedtoother beat himwithanelectricbaton”whenherefusedto answer. Complaint alsoallegesthat“[p]olicequestionedhim astowhetherhepracticedFalunGongandbrutally because theLiaoNingProvincepolicesuspectedthat hewasaFalunGongpractitioner.The Gong relatedassociations,observancesandactivities.” tortured for“herparticipationintheFalunGongspiritual movement,andherbeliefpracticeinFalun Chinese society.” intimidation andpunishmentofFalunGongpractitionersas“hatefulgroupactingagainstthebestinterests of Compl. ¶¶13-25.Inthe Does IandIIwerearresteddetained for suchpurposesasobtaininginformation,intimidation,punishment,ordiscrimination.Inthe Id. 294 F.3dat93.Thepurposeoftheintentrequirementistoeliminateclaimsbasedon“haphazard”acts. purposes wasincludedtoillustrate“thecommonmotivationsthatcauseindividualsengageintorture.” or discrimination.28U.S.C.§1350note3(b).TheD.C.Circuitin TVPA requiresthattheoffenderactedforsuchpurposesasobtaininginformation,intimidation,punishment requirement fortorture. Affidavits of continuously harassedbylocalpoliceofficerswhothreatenedtosendhimalaborcamp.Confidential Compl. ¶27.Thebeatingslefthisfootbadlymangled. was “hungfromwaterpipesforthreedays,handcuffedtootherprisonersandnotallowedsleep.” he lostconsciousness.ConfidentialAffidavitsof

In bothcases,thearrestingofficersandprisonguardsareallegedtohaveacted,atveryleast, The lastelementthateachplaintiffmustestablishisintent.28U.S.C.§1350note3(b)(1). In sum,allfourplaintiffshavesufficientlyallegedfactsestablishingtheseverepainorsuffering Xia c. Plaintiffs.Thus,hewasforcedtoleavehishomeandgointohiding. Requisite Intent Xia Compl.¶23.Accordingtothecomplaint,PlaintiffAwasarrested,detained,and Xia case,DefendantXiaissueddirectivesandorderscallingforthetargeting, Id. ¶ 27.Assuch,thefactsas pleadsupportafindingthatthe because Xia oftheirsupporttheFalunGongpractice. Plaintiffs& 68 Id. Id. ¶9.PlaintiffCwasarrestedanddetained ¶ 11.Afterhisrelease,PlaintiffCwas Xia Compl.¶27.Whenherefusedto Xia Compl.¶11.Onotheroccasions,he Price explainedthatthelistof Id. Xia Liu Liu case, Xia United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 and IIallegethattheywere arrestedaftertheytriedtoappealtheBeijingGovernment onbehalfofFalun allegations againstthegovernment couldsuffer“seriousreprisals.” prohibiting attorneysfrom engaging inlegaladvocacyonbehalfofpetitionersand thatthosemaking Plaintiffs’ claimsinthePeople’sRepublicofChina,” andthatthegovernmenthasissuedanordinance over theChinesejudiciarybyitsexecutiveauthorities, therearenoadequateandavailableremediesfor repressive actionsandpoliciesofthePeople’sRepublic ofChinadescribedabove,andthecontrolexerted requirements. Firstastoexhaustionoflocalremedies, the after thecauseofactionarose.”28U.S.C.§1350(c). TVPA provides:“Noactionshallbemaintainedunderthissectionunlessitiscommencedwithin10years Supp. 2d1322,1347,n.30(N.D.Ga.2002)(accord).Astothesecondproceduralrequirement, remedies are“ineffective,.inadequate,orobviouslyfutile.” defense beenproperlyraised,exhaustionmaybeexcusedwheretheplaintiffdemonstratesthatlocal defendant inthecasesatbarhasraisedaffirmativedefenseofnon-exhaustion.Moreover,evenhad the F.3d 767,778,n.5(9thCir.1996)(quotingS.Rep.No.102-249,at9-10).Bydefaulting,neither domestic remediesexistthattheclaimantdidnotuse.” party “hastheburdenofraisingnonexhaustionremediesasanaffirmativedefenseandmustshow that occurred.” 28U.S.C.§1350note2(b).However,thisrequirementisnotjurisdictional.Theresponding exhausted adequateandavailableremediesintheplacewhichconductgivingrisetoclaim the TVPAprovidesthatcourt“shalldeclinetohearaclaimunderthissectionifclaimanthasnot within thestatuteoflimitationsperiod.28U.S.C.§1350note2(b-c).Regardingexhaustionremedies, has twoproceduralrequirements:(1)exhaustionoflocalremedies,and(2)commencementanaction they havebeensubjectedtoactsrisingtheleveloftorture. allegations establishthesewerenotmerelyhaphazardacts. against theseindividualsasthebasisoftheirpracticeorsupportFalunGong.Atveryleast, The factsofferedinbothcomplaintsaresufficientto establishtheircompliancewithbothprocedural In additiontorequiringthattheallegedactscomewithindefinitionfortorture,TVPAalso 3. In sum,thefactsofferedbyDoesIandIIPlaintiffsACsufficientlysupportafindingthat Exhaustion ofLocalRemediesandStatutesLimitations 69 Hilao Liu

v. EstateofMarcos(“HilaoIII”) Plaintiffsallegethat“[i]nlightofthe Id.; seeMehinovicv.Vuckovic Liu Compl.¶38.Specifically, DoesI , 198F. , 103 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 international law[proscribing suchatort].recognizedbytheUnitedStates .and[2]whether[that been committedunderthe ATCA,thecourtmustdecide“‘[1]whetherthereis anapplicablenormof therefore addressestheclaimsofotherfour finding thatDoesIandIIweresubjecttotortureobviates theirATCAclaimsinthisregard.TheCourt 1322, 1348&n.33(N.D.Ga.2002),(quotingRestatement §702,Reporters’Note5)),thisCourt’s continuum ofconductwhichiscruel,inhumanordegrading inhuman, ordegradingtreatmentinviolationoftheATCA. Becausetortureisattheextremeendof D. claim onbehalfofbothherselfandherparent. sufficiently supporttheirclaimsoftortureundertheTVPA. actions arenottime-barred. 11 & period. Theactsoftortureallegedbytheplaintiffsinbothcasesfirsttookplace1999. Xia further persecution.Theircomplaintnotes: Does havefledthePRCtoescapefurtherpersecution. Gong practitionerswhohavebeenarrested,detainedandtortured. Compl.¶8.Exhaustionofremedieswouldhavebeenineffectiveandfutile. Xia The NinthCircuithasheldthattodeterminewhether atortinviolationofthelawnationshas Does IandIIthefournon-Chinese Cruel, InhumanorDegradingTreatment(ATCA) In sum,thefactsofferedbyDoesIandIIin Regarding thestatueoflimitations,bothactionsarebroughtwellwithinstatutelimitations As forthe Compl.¶¶13,14.Assuch,theten-yearlimitationsperioddoesnotrununtil2009.Thus,both the government’seffortstoterminateFalunGongmovement. and practicesregardingtheintimidationofFalunGongpractitioners and bringingpublicexposurecriticismtothegovernment’spolicies the [p]laintiffsand/ortheirfamiliesasaresultoffilingthislawsuit Government ofChinawouldseektoinflictpunishmentorcoercionon from reprisal,asaveryrealandsubstantialriskexiststhatthe their families,someofwhomremainwithinthejurisdictionChina, identities oftheindividuallynamedplaintiffsinordertoprotectthemand [A]lphabetic designationshavebeenusedtosubstituteforthespecific Xia Plaintiffs,theyallegethatcannotexhaustlocalremediesbecauseoftherisk Liu Liu Plaintiffs. Plaintiffscontendthattheirtreatmentconstitutescruel, 70 Liu Liu (Mehinovic v.Vuckovic Compl.¶¶16,25. actionandPlaintiffsACinthe Xia PlaintiffB,however,hasfailedtostatea Liu Compl.¶¶13,17.Bothofthe , 198F.Supp.2d Liu Compl.¶¶9- Xia action United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 within thestatuteoflimitations sincenoneoftheallegedwrongdoingoccurred priorto1999. v. Mehinovic provides that“cruel,inhumane,ordegradingtreatment” encompassesactsfallingshortoftorture appear tobeaspecificstandardfordeterminingwhat constitutessuchtreatment. law ofnations.” requisite elementsofuniversalityandspecificitytoconstitute arecognizedproscriptionunderthecustomary 1998); 1348; Tachiaona v.Mugabe have thusheldthereisaclearinternationalprohibitionagainstcruel,inhumanordegradingtreatment. (S.D.N.Y. 2002); F. Supp.162,187(D.Mass.1995); “ICCPR”]; International CovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights,March23,1976,art.7,999U.N.T.S.171[hereinafter Nations ConventionAgainstTorture,etc.,art.16,S.TreatyDoc.No.100-20,23I.L.M.1027(1984); 1948, art.5,G.A.Res.217A(III),3U.N.GAORSupp.No.16,Doc.A/810(1948);United international law. F.3d at1383-84. law, thecourtmaylooktodecisions,workofjuristsandusagenations. a claimmaybestatedundertheATCA. 1467). Iftheallegedconductviolates“well-established,universallyrecognizednormsofinternationallaw” international lawmustbe“‘specific,universal,andobligatory.’” Cir. 1998), tort] wasviolatedin[this]particularcase.’” TurnerCorp. EstateofCabello, Xuncax v.Gramajo 43 The questioniswhethertheprohibitiononcruel,inhumananddegradingtreatment“possesses “Cruel, inhuman,ordegradingtreatment” WithintheNinthCircuit TVPA andATCA , 198F.Supp.2dat1348(cruel,inhumanordegrading treatmentdefinedasincluding“acts

Forti v.Suarez-Mason (quoting Tachionav.Mugabe , 43 324F.3d692,717(9thCir. 2003); See Mehinovic v.Vuckovic Trajanov.Marcos Restatement§702(d). , 216F.Supp.2d262,281(S.D.N.Y.2002); 157F.Supp.at1360-61; 886F.Supp.162,187(D.Mass.1995); , 694F.Supp.707,712(N.D.Cal.1988); Wiwa v.RoyalDutchPetroleumCo., ,

234 F.Supp.2d401,435(S.D.N.Y.2002).There doesnot , 978F.2d493,502(9thCir.1992)).Theapplicablenormof Filartiga , 198F.Supp.2d1322,1348(N.D.Ga.2002). Martinez v.CityofLosAngeles, See also

has beencondemnedbynumeroussourcesof , 630F.2dat888.Indeterminingnormsofinternational 71 havethesameten-yearstatute oflimitations. Jama v.I.N.S.

Papa Universal DeclarationofHumanRights,Dec.10, , 281F.3dat1013. Id. at 1383 , 22F.Supp.2d353,363(D.N.J. Forti Mehinovic

(quoting , 694F.Supp.at711. 2002 WL319887,at*8 141 F.3d1373,1383(9th Xuncax

Plaintiffs’claimsarewell International lawmerely , 198F.Supp.2dat HilaoII Martinez

v. Gramajo, , 25F.3dat

Thecourts .

See , 141 Deutsch See 886 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Rights whichprohibits, Moreover, subsequentto sufficiently egregiousmaybefoundtoconstitutecruel, inhumanordegradingtreatmentundertheATCA. demonstrate, nearlyeverycaseaddressingthequestion subsequentto international law)(emphasisinoriginal). international communitywould.agreethat Eastman KodakCo.v.Kavlin under theATCAiswhetherthatconductuniversallycondemnedascruel,inhuman,ordegrading. . .”886F.Supp.at187.Thefocus,under and universallyagreedbeforeagivenactionmeritingthelabelisclearlyproscribedunderinternationallaw . reasoned that“[i]tisnotnecessaryforeveryaspectofwhatmightcompriseastandard.befullydefined not.” degrading treatment’thisCourthasnowayofdeterminingwhatallegedtreatmentisactionable,and is F. Supp.at712.The court heldthattherewasnoclearuniversallyacceptedguidanceastowhatconstitutessuchtreatment. 694 inhuman, ordegradingtreatmentissufficientlyspecifictobeactionableundertheATCA.In inhuman ordegradingfromactsthatarenot. international decisionscitedbythePlaintiffsprovidesaspecificstandardforparsingoutactsthatarecruel, Against Humanity,andArbitraryDetentionunderInternationalLaw[“ILAff.”],¶¶18-29.Noneofthe International LawScholarsontheStatusofTorture,Cruel,InhumanorDegradingTreatment,Crimes array ofactsthatcourtsaroundtheworldhavefoundtobecruel,inhumanordegrading. Note 5.Infact,theauthoritiesprovidedbyPlaintiffsintheirsupplementalbriefsmerelyillustrate level of‘torture’ordonothavethesamepurposesas‘torture.’”), which inflictmentalorphysicalsuffering,anguish,humiliation,fearanddebasement,donotrisetothe Id This Courtispersuadedthatthe In contrast,thecourtin The courtshavedivergedintheirapproachtothequestionaswhetherprohibitiononcruel, . at712. Forti inter alia Forti courtexplained,“Absentsomedefinitionofwhatconstitutes‘cruel,inhumanor , theUnitedStatesratified the InternationalCovenantofCivilandPolitical Xuncax , 978F.Supp.1078,1093(S.D.Fla.1997)(issueiswhether“the , “cruel,inhumanordegrading treatmentorpunishment.” , whileacknowledgingthecomplexdefinitionalproblemofthistort, Xuncax Xuncax that specificconduct approachiscorrect.Astheauthoritiescitedabove 72 , isonthespecificconductatissue,andquestion see also amountedto”aviolationofcustomary Forti Restatement§702,Reporters’ hasheldthatconduct See Estate of Forti Aff. of , the See United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 CCPR/C/64/D/752/1997, ¶¶1.1-2.4(1999);(4)adeathrowinmatesubjected toatleasttwoweeksof stitches, medical treatment,forced to sleepontheconcretefloor,andphysicallybeaten tothepointthatherequired he wasconfinedwithoutnaturallightingandventilation forupto24hoursatatime,deprivedofnecessary (3) adeathrowinmateconfinedincellthatwasfilthy andinfestedwithroaches,flies,rats,often, v. Cameroon and sanitaryfacilities,forcedtosleepontheconcrete floorwithoutanycoveringorclothing, being confinedforatleastsixdaysina25squaremeter cellwithupto30otherdetainees,deprivedoffood U.N. Doc.CCPR/C/53/D/542/1993¶¶1-2.1(1996);(2)apre-trialdetaineedevelopedbronchitisafter and hiswhereaboutscannotbeascertained, cruel, inhumanordegradingtreatment:(1)aex-convictabductedafterservinghistwo-yearprisonterm conditions andabusesfarmoreseverethanthoseallegedhere. Rights, andtheAfricanCommissiononHumanPeoples’Rightscitedthereindescribeddetention Rights Commission,theInter-AmericanCommissiononHumanRights,EuropeanCourtof treatment here.AffidavitofInt’lScholarsNo.1.TheinternationalcasesbeforetheUnitedNationsHuman international decisionsreferencedinthePlaintiffs’affidavitsupportsafindingofcruel,inhumanordegrading an affidavitofinternationalscholarstoestablishsuchnormswereviolatedhere.However,nonethe to determinewhetherthespecificconductallegedviolateduniversallyestablishednorms.Plaintiffssubmit office attemptedtoforcehishandintohervaginawhileseveralotherofficerspinneddown. pushed, shoved,hit,andplacedinachokehold. Odar allegethattheyweresubjectedtoonedayofincarcerationandinterrogationduringwhich prohibiting cruel,inhumanordegradingtreatment.Aspreviouslynoted,PlaintiffsLarsson,Lemish,and determine whethertheirallegedtreatmentissufficientlyseveresoastoviolateuniversallyacceptednorms definition –doesnotnegatetheessenceandapplicationofthatinclearcases. Cabello, For example,theUnitedNationsHumanRightsCommitteehasdeemedfollowingconditions The allegationsofspecificconductmustbecomparedwithexistingauthoritiesoninternationallaw The Courtthereforeexaminestheallegationsofeachfournon-Chineseplaintiffsin Henry v.TrinidadandTobago 157F.Supp.at1361.Thefactthattheremaybedoubtthemargins–ainheresinany , CommunicationNo.458/1991,U.N.Doc.CCPR/C/51/D/458/1991 ¶¶2.2-2.3(1994); , CommunicationNo.752/1997, U.N.Doc. see

e.g. Tshishimbiv.Zaire Liu Compl.,¶¶26-29.PlaintiffPetitallegesthatapolice 73 , CommunicationNo.542/1993, Id. Mukong Liu ¶26. to United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Comm. No.225/98,¶¶5-9 (2000). to unsanitaryconditions,denied necessarymedicalattention,andphysicallybeaten, (2000); and(2)apre-trialdetaineeconfinedforapproximately twoweeksduringwhichhewassubjected allowed tobathe,andfedonlytwiceaday, conditions as:(1)apre-trialdetaineeconfinedfor147 daysduringwhichhewaschainedtothefloor,not Bulgaria batons andabusesthatresultedinbruisesalloverhisbodyareupto5cmdiameter, v. Austria two daysandsubjectedtopuncheskicksonthehead,kidneys,rightarmupperleg, physical beatings, without bedorblanketsandwhowasfedonlybreadwatersubjectedtoelectricshocks severe conditions:(1)apre-trialdetaineeconfinedforapproximatelyfourdaysinsub-zerotemperatures 11.427, ¶9(1998),1998IACHR475. physical beatingsthatononeoccasionresultinavisibleheadwound, Case No.12.023,¶¶85-90(2000),1999IACHR918;and(2)amentallyillprisonersubjectedtoregular was lefttobleedfromseriousinjuriesthatresultedbeingbeatenwithbatons, and maggotsthatwaspervadedbyfoulodor,whodeprivedoffood,lighting,ventilation inhuman ordegradingtreatment:(1)apre-trialdetaineeconfinedfor23hoursincellinfestedwithflies ¶¶ 2.1,2.4(1992). consciousness, to regularphysicalbeatingswithclubs,batons,andelectricwiresthatresultedinseriousinjurieslossof 407/1990, U.N.Doc.CCPR/C/51/D/407/1990,¶¶2.6-2.7(1994); resulted inseriousphysicalinjuries,suchasfracturedbones, confinement withonlyoneortwomealsadayandsometimeswithoutwater,aswellbeatingsthat Cases examinedbytheAfricanCommissiononHuman andPeoples’Rightsalsoinvolvedsuch Cases beforetheEuropeanCourtofHumanRightsandFundamentalFreedomsinvolvedsimilarly The Inter-AmericanCommissiononHumanRightshasdeemedthefollowingtoconstitutecruel, , 28E.H.R.R.652,663,¶¶10-11(1998). , 21E.H.R.R.573,575,¶12(1996);and(3)apre-trialdetaineesubjectedtobeatingswith Linton v.Jamaica Tekin v.Turkey , 31E.H.R.R.95,¶9(2001);(2)apre-trialdetaineeconfinedforupto , CommunicationNo.255/1987,U.N.Doc.CCPR/C/46/D/255/1987, Media RightsAgendav.Nigeria 74 Hylton v.Jamaica

Congo v.Ecuador and (5)adeathrowinmatesubjected , Comm.No.224/98,¶40 , CommunicationNo. McKenzie v.Jamaica Huri-Laws v.Nigeria , CaseNo. Assenov v. Ribitsch , , United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 and notnecessarilystateits equivalent. the Amendments oftheU.S.Constitution.” cruel, force used,threattoofficials,effortstemperseverity offorce,andextentinjuriestodetainee). (9th Cir.1993)(courtmustexamineneedforapplication of harm’”) good faitheffortto the measuretakeninflictedunnecessaryandwanton pain andsuffering” v. McMillian would appeartoestablisha Default according ICCPR). of See test forcruel Senate’s authorities toconstitutedcruel,inhumanordegradingtreatment. their treatmentpalesincomparisontotheactswhichhavebeenfoundbyvariouscourtsandinternational and hadpropertydestroyedinthecourseofavillageransacking) due tocrediblethreatofphysicalharm,hadbribedefendantgainarelative’sfreedom,werebeaten, Royal DutchPetroleumCo., having acrescentcarvedintotheforehead,forcedtolickownbloodoffpolicestationwalls); death); repeatedly hitontheheadwithbuttofagun,setfire,beingattackedandthreatened from guardsandsexualabuse); in roomswithtwentytofortydetainees,beaten,deprivedofprivacy,subjecteddegradingcomments to sleepunderbrightslights24hoursaday,livedinfilthandconstantsmellofhumanwaste,beingpacked family, besubjectedtobombingsandgrenadeattacks); severe mistreatmentofanimmediaterelative,watchsoldiersransackone’shomeandthreatening mistreatment hasbeeninvolved. ResolutionRatification); SenateintendedthatU.S.constitutional standardssettheoutermostlimitto interpretation oftheICCRP Cabello, inhuman,ordegrading treatment] shallnotextendbeyondprotectionsof the5th,8thand14th Judgment,at29(September4,2002).Theconduct allegedbyPlaintiffsLarsson,Lemish,andOdar, (quoting Mehinovic However, inratifying 44 Without diminishingthemistreatmentallegedlysufferedbyPlaintiffsLarsson,Lemish,andOdar, United Statescourtshavelikewisefoundcruel,inhuman,ordegradingtreatmentwheresevere ratificationsofboththeCATandICCPRwhichreflectsitsintenttoincorporateconstitutional Assuch,thePlaintiffsassertthatactionsofPRCsecurityforcesshouldbeevaluated ThePlaintiffsurgethatfindingcruel,inhumanordegradingtreatmentcouldbeconsistentwiththe toConstitutionalstandardsforcruelandunusualpunishment. Supp.MPAinSupportofMotionfor andunusualtreatmentorpunishmentprohibitedbytheFirth,Eighth,FourteenthAmendment. 157F.Supp.2dat1361. , 503U.S.1,5(1992)(whetherforceappliedto Whitley maintainorrestoredisciplinemaliciouslyandsadistically fortheverypurposeofcausing , 198F.Supp.2dat1348-49(victimsbeatenandhumiliatedinfrontofothersby v.Albers see prima facie theICCPR,Senate’sexpressedreservationstates that“Art.7[prohibiting 2002 WL319887,at*8(S.D.N.Y.2002) also Mugabe See Xuncax , 475U.S.312,320-21(1986)); 138Cong.Rec.S4781,S4783(identicalreservationamendedtothe dueprocessviolationapplicableto Mugabe , 216F.Supp.2dat281-82(victimssubjectedtobeing See CAT,136Cong.Rec.S10091,S10093 , 886F.Supp.at187(victimsforcedtowitnessthetortureor , 234 75 F.Supp.2dat439n.151. Thus,itwouldappearthat Jama force,relationshipbetweenneedandamountof , 22F.Supp.at358(detaineesnotpermitted detaineeisunconstitutionalturnson“‘whether 44 . Simplyput,areviewoftheauthorities LaMairev.Maass

(victims wereforcedintoexile whether“forcewasappliedina pretrialdetainees. , (July19,1990)(Text 12F.3d1444,1454 Wiwa v. See Hudson e.g. United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 dissenting). not kidnapping represents community canconstitute“thelawofnations”under theATCA. standard, at 160-61 v. Hartman necessarily determinativeofstandardstobefollowed bytheinternationalcommunity national constitutionsrecognizetherighttobefreefromarbitrarydetention)(othercitationsomitted). the InternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights(“ICCPR”),art.9,factthatatleast119 arrest anddetention.”)(citingtheUniversalDeclarationofHumanRights(“UniversalDeclaration”),art. 9, Angeles universally reorganizednormprohibitingarbitraryarrestanddetention.” In ( required normofinternationallawapplicableundertheATCAbe“specific,universal,andobligatory” arrests anddetentioninviolationoftheATCA.TheNinthCircuithasheldasageneralpropositionthat the E. of theATCA.PlaintiffsLarsson,Lemish,andOdarhavenot. male andfemaledetaineessubjecttoinappropriatetouching). being forcedtosubmitsexualassaultasapreconditionforcontactingtheirlawyersbytelephone,and Para. 29. Committee AgainstTorture’sInitialReportspecificallylistssexualabuseasacruelact. prohibited bytheinternationalcommunityasawhole. discussed abovedoesnotestablishthatthespecificconductallegedbytheseplaintiffsisuniversally Hilao II 165.Whileonenation’spracticesmayinformthequestion astotheexistenceofaninternationallyaccepted Alvarez-Machain violatetheATCAirrespective ofinternationallegalnorms.2003WL21264256 at*39(O’Scannlain (1820); In Each ofthePlaintiffsin Arbitrary Detention(ATCA) Accordingly, PlaintiffPetithasstatedaclaimforcruel,inhumanordegradingtreatmentinviolation On theotherhand,sexualabusesufferedbyPlaintiffPetitisdifferent.TheUnitedNations , 141F.3d1373,1384(9thCir.1998)(“thereisaclearinternationalprohibitionagainstarbitrary , 25F.3dat1475)issatisfiedwithrespecttotherightbefreeofarbitraryarrestanddetention. onlythosedomesticstandardsrisingtothelevelofcustomary usageandpracticeoftheinternational anyevent,irrespectiveoftheSenate’sinterpretation, theconstitutionalstandardsofonenationisnot theconverseofdissents’ positionin See Jama ofaMexicannationalatthe behestoftheDEA,wasauthorizedbyUnitedStates andthuscould , 634F.2d

Carmichael , 22F.Supp.2dat358-59(sexualfavorssoughtoffemaleplaintiffs,includingsome , 2003WL21264256at*12,theNinthCircuitheld“thereexistsaclearand

318, 319(5thCir.1981); v.UnitedTechs.Corp. Liu and Xia cases assertclaimsthattheyweresubjecttoarbitrary see Alvarez-Machain 76 alsoUnitedStatesv.Smith , 835F.2d109,113(5thCir.1988);

Beanal, thatthechallengedconduct, transborder See Martinezv.CityofLos 197 F.3dat165 , 18U.S.(5Wheat)153, asawhole. See Beanal . Theinstantcase ILAff.#1, See Cohen , 197F.3d United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Mexico andbroughtintothe UnitedStateswithoutlegalauthorityunderMexican law.2003WL valid Mexicanarrestwarrant.” 141F.3dat1384.In was arrestedinMexicoatthebehestofLosAngeles PoliceDepartmentpursuantto“anapparently analysis istodeterminewhetherthedetentionwaspursuant tolaw.In § 702cmt.h. was givenasufficiently“earlyopportunitytocommunicate withfamilyortoconsultcounsel.”Restatement “incompatible withtheprinciplesofjusticeordignityhumanperson”whetherdetainee 1997). Logically,thefactthatadetentionisprolongedmaydeterminewhether (N.D. Ga.2002andcasescitedin Supp. 1531,1541(N.D.Cal.1987), detentions, notingthattheRestatementmakesexpressreferenceto“prolongedarbitrarydetention.”672 F. (“ length ofthedetentioninassessingitsarbitrariness.AsJudgeJensennoted Alvarez-Machain is detainedwithoutwarrantorarticulablesuspicion,notapprisedofcharges,andbroughttotrial). law); were notbroughtbeforeanycourtortriedforoffense,anddetentionsmadepursuantto Mehinovic counsel; orisnotbroughttotrialwithinareasonabletime.”Restatementat§702cmt.h. of charges;ifthepersondetainedisnotgivenearlyopportunitytocommunicatewithfamilyorconsult 702 cmt.h).TheRestatementfurtherprovidesthatdetentionisarbitraryif“itnotaccompaniedbynotice Machain also ifitisincompatiblewiththeprinciplesofjusticeordignityhumanperson.” 702 cmt.h.TheRestatementprovidesdetentionisarbitrary“ifitnotpursuanttolaw;maybe Forti I WIWAv.RoyalDutchPetroleumCo. Under theRestatementasinterpretedby While theNinthCircuithasheldthatadetentionneednotbe“prolonged”inordertoarbitrary, The NinthCircuithasendorsedthedefinitionofarbitrarydetentioncontainedinRestatement§ ”), theinternationalconsensusisespeciallyclearonillegalityof“prolonged”arbitrary , 2003WL21264256at*14,quoting , 198F.Supp.2dat1349(plaintiffsweredetainedwithouteverbeingadvisedofanycharges, , 2003WL21264256at*13,anumberofcourtshavegivensubstantialweighttothe Eastman KodakCo.v.Kavlin see alsoMehinovicv.Vockovic , 2002WL319887at*7(detentionisarbitrarywhenperson Martinez Alvarez-Machain 77 Alvarez-Machain , 141F.3dat1384(quotingtheRestatement§ , 978F.Supp.1078,1094(S.D.Fla. and Martinez , 198F.Supp.2d13221349 Martinez , theplaintiffwasabducted from Forti v.Suarez-Mason , forinstance,theplaintiff , thefirststepin Seealso Alvarez- United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 detention wasarbitrary. for onemonthduringwhich hewassubjecttorepeatedbeatingsconstitutedarbitrary detention).DoeI’s under adverseconditionsof detention); (detention ofeightortendayscanbesufficiently“substantial” soastobeconstituteprolongeddetention confinement wasprolongedunderthesecircumstances. officer foraprobablecausehearingwithin48hours). Aspreviouslynoted,shewassubjecttotorture.Her 44, 56-58(1991)(underU.S.law,personsarrested withoutawarrantmustbebroughtbeforejudicial to seeafamilymemberorlawyer. opportunity toseefamilyorobtaincounsel.Theywerealsodetainedundercrueltortuousconditions. basis fortheirarrest.Manysufferedprolongeddetentionwithoutbeingcharged Plaintiffs havestatedclaimsforarbitrarydetentionevenifitisassumed committing murderinhispresence). murderers, drugdealersandAIDSpatients,leftwithoutfood,blanketorprotectionfrominmates arbitrary detention confinement are“horrendousbyanycontemporarystandardofhumandecency,”supportafinding inhuman conditionsbeyondthe“run-of-the-milldueprocessviolations,”suchaswhenof Supp. 330,335(S.D.Fla.1994).Eveniftheconductisshortoftorture,atleastonecourthasfoundthat have foundthedetentionarbitrary. counsel), theconditionsofconfinementmaybeafactor.Wheredetaineeissubjecttotorture,courts to notifydetaineeofcharges,permitanearlyopportunitycommunicatewithfamilyorconsult 702 cmt.h).Inthisregard,alongwiththefactorsreferredtoinRestatement§h( justice orwiththedignityofhumanperson.” corruption andconspiracytocommitextortion). 21264256 at*1. In the 1. Applying thesestandardstothecasesatbar,Courtfindsthatmajorityofindividual Even ifthearrestismadepursuanttolaw,itmaybearbitrary“incompatiblewithprinciplesof Liu case,DoeIwasheldtotwentydayswithoutbeingchargedorgivenanopportunity Doe v.Liu . EastmanKodakCo. Cf. EastmanKodakCo., Liu See. e.g.Xuncax, Compl.,¶13. Mehinovic, supra, , 978F.Supp.at1094(detaineeforcedtosharefilthycellwith 978 F.Supp.at1080-81(individualimprisonedasaresultof Martinez 78 886 F.Supp.at169-70; Cf. Cf.EastmanKodakCo.

, 141F.3dat1384( 198F.Supp.2dat1349(detention ofplaintiff County ofRiversidev.McLaughlin arguendo quoting Paulv.Avril

and withoutan thattherewasalegal , 978F.Supp.at1094 theRestatement§ , 901F. e.g , 500U.S. . failure United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 established anarbitrarydetention inviolationoftheATCA. sufficient torenderhisconfinementviolativeofauniversally acceptednormofinternationallaw.Hehasnot that exceedthe“run-of-the-milldueprocessviolations,” ( militating againstfindingofarbitrarydetention).Nor wasPlaintiffLarssonsubjecttoinhumanconditions counsel. able toconsultwithcounselwithin24hoursconstitutes deprivationof“anearlyopportunity”toconsultwith appear tobeauniversalnormrequiringthebringingchargeswithin24hoursormandatingthatnotbeing serious injury. legal counselortocontacthisEmbassy.Hewasstruckandpushedseveraltimesbutdidnotsufferany Plaintiffs havenotestablishedauniversalnormrenderingherdetentionarbitrary. constitutional law,suchaperiodofdetentionisnotnecessarilyunlawful. detention of24hourscanconstituteanarbitrarydetention.Asnotedabove,evenunderUnitedStates presented noauthoritieswhichestablishandthatabsentproofthedetentionwasnotpursuanttolaw, a the conditionsofconfinementweredegradingandexceededboundsdecency,Plaintiffshave above, shewasmadetosuffercruel,inhumananddegradingtreatmentduringtheconfinement. any charges,norwasshepermittedtocontactherembassyorconsultwithlegalcounsel. torture wasprolonged.Herdetentionarbitrary. confinement ofnearlyamonthwithoutchargeoropportunitytoseeanattorneyandundercondition was thenreturnedtoherhometownwhereshedetainedforanotherfifteendayperiod. subjected totortureaswellmadewitnessthebeatingsandsexualassaultofothers. attorney wasrefused(andshetauntedformakingtherequest)( for elevendayswithoutchargeorbeingtriedanyoffense. any opportunitytocontactfamilyorlegalcounsel. Plaintiff Larssonwasheldforadaywithoutbeinginformedofchargesorpermittedaccessto Plaintiff Petitwasdetainedforapproximately24hours. Doe IIwasdetainedin1999forthreedayswithoutbeingadvisedofanychargesandrefused Cf.

Martinez Liu Compl.¶27.Hisdetentionwasnotprolongedbecauseasnotedabove,theredoes , 141F.3dat1384(factthatplaintiffwasbroughtbefore ajudgewithin72hours Liu 79 Compl.¶17.In2000,shewasdetainedinBeijing Eastman KodakCo. Id. Liu ¶¶18-23.Herrequesttoseeany Compl.¶26.Shewasnotadvisedof Id. ¶23)and,asnotedabove,was County ofRiverside,supra , 978F.Supp.at1094) Id. Id . Asnoted ¶20.She Id. Id ¶24.Her . While . United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 the subjected toarbitrarydetention. that hewaseverbroughttotrial.Thelengthandtortuousconditionsofconfinementestablish forced tohangbyhandcuffsfromawaterpipeforthreedays,anddeprivedofsleep.Itdoesnotappear he wasdetainedformorethanfifteendaysandagaintorturedbybeingbeatenwithanelectricbaton, including beingsubjectedtoanelectricbaton,leatherbeltandironchains.ConfidentialAffidavit.In2000, arbitrary detention. first wasunderinhumanconditionsinconsistentwithhumandignity.Shethereforesubjectedto Although herarrestwasarguablypursuanttocoloroflaw,detentionswereprolongedandatleastthe the convertedFalunGongpractitioners.”ConfidentialAffidavit.Itappearsshewasneverbroughttotrial. In 2000,shewasdetainedforanadditional55daysandchargedofbeing“suspectedconvertingback Compl. ¶33.Asdiscussedabove,shewassubjecttotortureandinhumantreatmentduringherdetention. the ATCAofarbitrarydetention. that sufferedbyPlaintiffLarsson. detentionandconditionsthereof) ofLarsson,LemishandOdarwerewithoutauthority underChineselaw. 45 Plaintiff Cwasarrestedin1999anddetainedfor13daysduringwhichhesubjecttotorture Plaintiff Awasdetainedin1999for49days.Shechargedwith“disruptingsocialorder.” 2. Plaintiffs LemishandOdarweredetainedforsimilarperiodsoftimeunderconditionsas Unlike Plaintiff Av.Xia Alvarez-Machain 45 Liu , theComplaintin Compl.¶¶28-29.Theythereforealsofailtoestablishaclaimunder 80 Liu doesnotestablishthatthe arrests(asopposedto Liu United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 specific ATCAclaims. the no additionalauthoritiesto supporttheircustomaryinternationallawclaimsindependent ofthe international religious action of However, on Comment 14underArticle6oftheICCPR.Theplaintiffs initiallyassertedthis Claims under right tolife,asdefinedbyArticle6oftheICCPR;and (2)that alleges that“DefendantLiukneworreasonablyshouldhaveknownBeijingpoliceandothersecurity demonstrations; and(3)suchabuseshavebeenwidelyreported. and othersecurityforceshaverepeatedlydetainedtorturedpractitionersparticipatinginassemblies and been afocalpointoftherepressionandpersecutionFalunGongpractitionerssince1999;(2)police their commissionofsuchabuses.” Plaintiffs, andhadcommandorsuperiorresponsibilityover,controlled,aidedabettedsuchforces in instigated, ordered,authorized,orincitedpoliceandothersecurityforcestocommittheabusessuffered by Gong practitioners. management, command,andsupervisoryauthorityengagedinwidespreaddetentiontortureofFalun actions takenbysecurityforcesundertheircontrol. alleged conduct.Instead,bothsetsofPlaintiffsallegethattheDefendantswerelegallyresponsiblefor then MayorofBeijingandtheDeputyProvincialGovernorLiaoNingProvince–directlyengagedin claims forarbitrarydetentionundertheATCA.Theotherindividualplaintiffshavenot. actionfordeprivationoftherighttolife.Second, plaintiffsallegethatinadditiontohavingcausesof behalfofover100FalunGongpractitionerswhohave allegeddiedfromtorture. allegationsviolatethelaw ofnationsundertheATCA.Assuch,claimsare redundantwiththemore customaryinternationallawofhumanrights.First,the plaintiffslackstandingtoassertarightlifeclaim. undertheATCAforviolationsoftreaty-basedlaw nationsontorture,genocide,arbitrarydetention, ofdeprivationtherighttolifearepredicatedonactions resultinginthetakingofhumanlife.General 46 The The Plaintiffsinboththe Doe IandIIinthe 3. persecution,anddeprivation oftherighttolife,theyalsohavecausesaction undercustomary The theclasswasnevercertified.Becauseallofindividual plaintiffsarestillliving,theyhavenocause lawofhumanrightsforthe sameatrocities. Liu Xia PlaintiffsallegethatBeijingpoliceandothersecurityforcesunderDefendantLiu’s Conclusion Plaintiffshavealsofailedtoestablishtwootherclaims: (1)thatDefendantXiaviolatedtheir Liu Compl.¶¶32-34.ThePlaintiffsallegethatDefendantLiuasMayor“planned, VIII. Liu Liu Id. caseandPlaintiffACinthe and ¶37.The COMMANDER RESPONSIBILITY Xia casesdonotcontendthattheDefendantsineachcase– Liu 81 Complaintallegesthat:(1)thecityofBeijinghas See Xia DefendantXiaviolatedtheirprotectedrights Compl.¶35.Theplaintiffs, however,provide Id. ¶32.Importantly,the Xia claimaspartofaclassaction casehaveestablished See Xia 46 Liu argumentthat Compl.¶32. Complaint United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 in command authorityoverpoliceandsecurityforceswho carriedouttheallegedabuses.TheNinthCircuit, carried outrepressivepolicies. and Xiaisallegedtohaveactedonlyaspartofagoverning councilorgroupunderwhichsubordinates Liu inthatisallegedtohaveactedessentiallyas achieforsolecommanderofthesubordinateforces the claimedabuses.Inthisregard,ComplaintagainstDefendantXiadiffersfromthat others, theonlyoperativefactsallegedpertaintohisroleingovernanceofsubordinateswhoconducted 28. Althoughthe have beenthedirectresultofactionsDefendantandthosewithwhomheactedinconcert. Ning Provincewhichactivelycarriedoutthepolicyofrepression. Complaint, DefendantXiaactivelyparticipatedinthegeneralgoverningcouncilsofDaLianCityandLiao practitioners wereallegedtohavebeendetainedinJuneof2000. notorious prisonlaborcampsinthecountryusedtoincarcerateandtortureFalunGongpractitioners–470 highest deathtollsofFalunGongdetainees(27sinceJuly20,1999);(3)andisthesitemost jurisdictions inChinaasregardstoitsarrestandtreatmentofFalunGongpractitioners;(2)hasonethe Complaint allegesthattheLiaoNingProvince:(1)isknowntobeoneofmostrepressiveandabusive that exercisessupervisionandauthorityoverlawenforcementprisonmanagement. Defendant Xiaplayeda“keypartofthegeneralgovernancebodymadeuphighestlevelofficials” Governor ofLiaoNingProvince,wheretherehasbeenwidespreadcrackdownupontheFalunGong, of repressionFalunGongpractitioners. operation ofthelawenforcementandcorrectionalsystemscarryingoutgovernment’spolicy and MemberoftheCityCouncilDaLainCity,exercisedgeneralsupervisoryauthorityover practitioners.” forces wereengagedinapatternorpracticeofseverehumanrightsabusesagainstFalunGong Hilao III Thus, thegistofassertionDefendants’liability inbothcasesistheirexerciseofsuperioror In Xia , addressedsimilarclaims against PresidentMarcos,andheld: , PlaintiffsallegethatDefendantXia,asDeputyMayor,MayorofGeneralAffairs Id. in U.S.andinternationallaw inconnectionwithactscommitted responsible fortheactions ofsubordinatesappearstobewellaccepted The principleofcommand responsibilitythatholdsasuperior Xia ¶33. ComplaintalludestoDefendantXia’sactinginconcertwithandconspiring Xia Compl.¶15.PlaintiffsalsoallegethatasDeputyProvincial 82 Id. Id. ¶23.Plaintiff’sinjuriesareallegedto ¶20.Accordingtothe Id. ¶17.The Xia Id. Xia ¶ United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 http://www.un.org/icty/celebici/trialc21judgement/cel-tj981116e.pdf. ¶¶ 333-43(U.N.I.C.T.(Yug.)), described F. Supp.330,335(S.D.Fla.1994). under hisinstructions,authority,andcontrolacting withinthescopeofauthoritygrantedbyhim.”901 former militaryrulerofHaitiresponsibleforarbitrary detentionandtorturecommittedbythose“acting I.L.M. 1159,1192-94(1993)).TheNinthCircuitalso citedwithapproval perpetrators thereof.” superior failedtotakethenecessaryandreasonablemeasurespreventsuchactsorpunish knew orhadreasontoknowthatthesubordinatewasaboutcommitsuchactsdonesoand violation wascommitted“byasubordinatedoesnotrelieve.[the]superiorofcriminalresponsibilityif he (1977)). TheNinthCircuitcitedtheFormerYugoslaviaStatuteasstatingthatfactahumanrights breach.” such abreach,andiftheydidnottakeallfeasiblemeasureswithintheirpowertopreventorrepressthe enabled themtoconcludeinthecircumstancesattime,thathewascommittingorgoingcommit superiors frompenal[or]disciplinaryresponsibility.iftheyknew,orhadinformationwhichshouldhave breach oftheConventionsorthisProtocolwascommittedbyasubordinatedoesnotabsolvehis international lawprinciples.InArticle86(2),theGenevaConventionProtocolstatesthat“thefacta Former Yugoslavia(hereinafterreferredtoasthe“FormerStatute”)additionalevidenceof Responsible forSeriousViolationsofInternationalHumanitarianLawCommittedintheTerritory Convention Protocol”)andtheStatuteofInternationalTribunalforProsecutionPersons cited theProtocoltoGenevaConventionsofAugust12,1949(hereinafterreferredas“Geneva protect prisonersofwarandthecivilianpopulation.327U.S.at14-16.In commander oftheJapaneseforceshadanaffirmativedutytotakesuchmeasureswithinhispower 103 F.3dat777 47 Theevolutionofthedoctrine ofcommandresponsibilityasaninternationalprinciple afterWWIis indetailbytheInternational Courtin Hilao

III . In 1, 14-16(1946),indicates. wartime, astheSupremeCourt’sopinionin , 103F.3dat777(citingtheGenevaConventionProtocol,16I.L.M.1391,1429 In reYamashita Hilao III , 103F.3dat777 available at 47 , theCourtheldthatmilitarygovernorofPhilippinesand Prosecutor

(citing theFormerYugoslaviaStatute,art.7(3),32 83 v.Delalic In reYamashita , No.IT-96-21-T,1998WL 2013972, Paul v.Avril Hilao III, , 327U.S. the NinthCircuit , whichheldthe United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 applied thedoctrineofcommander responsibilitytociviliansuperiorsaswell militarycommanders.In the TVPAdoesnotlimitits applicabilitytoactsofmilitaryofficialsorthecontext ofwar. killings whethercommittedbymilitaryorcivilianforces. Senate thusimplicitlyendorsedtheapplicationofcommand responsibilitytoactsoftortureandextrajudicial which “hekneworshouldhaveknowntheyweregoing onbutfailedtopreventorpunishthem.”The specifically refersto or knowinglyignoredthoseacts..” the Senateexpresslyrecognizedresponsibilityfor“anyonewithhigherauthoritywhoauthorized,tolerated The international human-rightslaw.” wartime –“toprotectcivilianpopulationsandprisoners.frombrutality,issimilartothegoalof peacetime, perhapsbecausethegoalofinternationallawregardingtreatmentnon-combatantsin the “UnitedStateshasmovedtowardrecognizingsimilar‘commandresponsibility’fortorturethatoccurs in the perpetratorsthereof.”). so andthesuperiorfailedtotakenecessaryreasonablemeasurespreventsuchactsorpunish “if heorsheknewhadreasontoknowthatthesubordinatewasaboutcommitsuchactsdone Rwanda, U.N.SCOR,49thSess.,art.6(3),Doc.S/Res/955(1994)(superiorcriminallyresponsible after thecommissionofcrimes.”289F.3dat1288. (3) thatthecommanderfailedtopreventcommissionofcrimes,orpunishsubordinates subordinates hadcommitted,werecommitting,orplannedtocommitactsviolativeofthelawwar;and crime; (2)thatthecommanderkneworshouldhaveknown,owingtocircumstancesattime,his “(1) theexistenceofasuperior-subordinaterelationshipbetweencommanderandperpetrator F.3d 1283,1288-89(11th Guardsmen, theEleventhCircuitendorsedcommandresponsibilitydoctrine. of DefensebroughtbysurvivorschurchwomentorturedandmurderedtheSalvadorNational Hilao Similarly, thestatutesof InternationalCriminalTribunalforFormerYugoslavia andRwanda While thesecasesandstatuteshaveinvolvedwarorwar-likecontexts,theNinthCircuitnotedthat Similarly, inasuitagainsttheDirectorofSalvadoranNationalGuardandElSalvador’sMinister

III courtnotedthatthelegislativehistoryofTVPAsupportsapplicationdoctrine,as In ReYamashita Cir. 2002).Thecourtheldthattheessentialelementsofsuchresponsibilityare: Hilao III, inwhichtheCourtheldcommanderresponsible forwarcrimes Id. (quotingS.Rep.No.102-249,at9).TheSenateReport 103 F.3dat777(quoting 84

S. Rep.No.102-249at9.Notably,thetextof See also StatuteoftheInternationalTribunalfor InreYamashita Ford v.Garcia , 327U.S.at15). Id. , 289 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 allegations inthe “superior” or“commander”withinthemeaningof doctrine. and punishthecommissionoftheseoffences.” Kayishema &Ruzindana applies toasuperiorwho“exercisedeffectivecontrol, whetherthatcontrolbe under hismanagement,command,andsupervisoryauthority. Thedoctrineofcommandresponsibility administrative area. members inthestateadministrativeorgansandtomanagepublicsecuritysupervisionwithinhis other securityforces.” which includestheoperationofPublicSecurityBureauBeijing,underpoliceoperate,and and policydecision,butalsotosupervise,directleadtheexecutivebranchofcitygovernment, Plaintiffs allegethatDefendantLiuheldthe“powernotonlytoformulateallimportantprovincialpolicies which allegedlycommittedthehumanrightsviolationsclaimedherein.AsMayorofBeijing, allege asuperior-subordinaterelationshipbetweenDefendantLiuandthepoliceothersecurityforces but alsotoindividualsinnon-militarypositionsofsuperiorauthority”). 1998 WL2013972,¶363(principleofsuperiorresponsibility“extendsnotonlytomilitarycommanders conclusion ininterpretingthestatuteapplicabletohumanrightsviolationsformerYugoslavia. authority heexercisedoverhissubordinates.” http://www.ictr.org. “Thecrucialquestion[is]notthecivilianstatusofaccused,butdegree 33268309 ¶¶209,213-16(U.N.I.C.T(Trial)(Rwanda))(citationomitted) “encompass politicalleadersandotherciviliansuperiorsinpositionsofauthority.”No.95-1,1999WL superior responsibilityembodiedintheauthorizingstatuteextendsbeyondmilitarycommandersto international law”andconstitutesa“principleofcustomarylaw,”heldthatthedoctrine Kayishema &Ruzindana interpreting theStatuteofInternationalTribunalforRwanda,Courtin The circumstancesofDefendant Xia’sauthorityismorecomplicated.Theessence ofthe Defendants LiuandXiameetthestandardforcommanderresponsibility.The Xia ComplaintisthatXia,Deputy MayorandMemberoftheCityCouncilDa Lian Id. Liu Accordingtothe , 1999WL33268309,¶222.Whatisrequired“the materialabilitytoprevent , afternotingthattheprincipleofcommandresponsibilityis“firmlyestablishedin Compl.¶35.Hehadtheauthoritytoappoint,remove,andpunishstaff Liu Complaint,theBeijingpoliceandjailsecurityforcesacted Id. Delalic ¶216.TheInternationalCourtreachedthesame 85 , 1999WL2013972,¶378.DefendantLiuwasa available at de jure Liu or de facto. Plaintiffsclearly Prosecutor v. Liu ” Delalic , United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 imputed tomembersofagoverning bodywhichauthorizedhumanrightsviolations. official in DaLianCity.” and “playedamajorpolicy-makingsupervisory roleinthepoliciesandpracticesthatwerecarriedout provincial officialwho“activelyparticipated”inthe governing bodiesthatsupervisedtheactsofrepression this case,itisallegedthatDefendantXiapossessedsimilar authorityasahighrankingmunicipaland persuasion ratherthanformalauthoritytoordersufficient toestablishcommanderresponsibility. immediate actionbetakentoputanendthecrimes.” in questionbecausethetribunalfound“Hirotaderelicthisdutynot‘insisting’beforecabinetthat command responsibilityforwarcrimesalthoughhelackedthedomesticlegalauthoritytorepress As theTribunalnoted,TokyoconvictedForeignMinisterKokiHirotaonbasisof structure bymeetingwithconcentrationcampcommandersorthegoverningcabinet. not formallyundertheircommandandwheretheDefendantplayedanintegralpartof pointed toprecedentinwhichcommandershavebeenheldresponsibleforwarcrimescommittedbytroops Kayishema &Ruzindana degree of“influence”notamountingto“formalpowerscommand.” situations wherethecommanderhaslessthanabsolutepower.Itappliesa responsibility isflexible.Notonlydoesitencompass the SecondWorldWar,thatdegreeof“effectivecontrol”neededtoapplydoctrinecommand International TribunalsinRwandaandFormerYugoslaviahaveheld,basedonprecedentdatingbackto While internationallawdoesnotappeartobeaswellestablishedonthispoint,therecentdecisionsof the conductatissue;rather,hisauthoritywassharedcollectivelywithothersthroughgoverningbodies. 28. Thus,the national governmentofficials“withwhomheactedinconcert”andconspired.” that theysufferedinjuriesasaresultoftheactionsDefendantandothermunicipal,provincial supervised thepoliciesandallegedlyillegalpractices. City andDeputyProvincialGovernorforLiaoNingProvince,servedongeneralgovernancebodiesthat shouldnotobviatethedoctrine ofcommandresponsibility 48 Toholdotherwisewould makelittlesense.Thefactthatcommandisshared bymorethanone Xia Xia ComplaintdoesnotappeartoallegethatDefendantXiahadloneauthorityauthorize Compl.¶15. , 1999WL33268306,¶220.Forinstance,theInternationalTribunalin 86 de facto Xia Id. Compl.¶¶15-17.The at376.Thetribunalfoundpowersof as well per se Delalic de jure , lestresponsibilitycouldnever be , 1998WL2013972,¶375; powers, itextendsto Xia Id. Plaintiffscontend ¶¶372,374,376. Id. Id. ¶¶24, 48 Delalic In United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 accord withtheEleventhCircuit’s decisionin at broader Conventions, Statuteof discussed above,thecourt’sreasoningandsources uponwhichitrelied–ProtocoltotheGeneva whether his which brutality committedbypersonnelunderhiscommand). Supp. 162,171-73,174-75(D.Mass.1995)(defendantwasawareofandsupportedwidespreadacts of is shownbyevidenceofapervasivepatternandpracticetorture..”); and securityforces. either “kneworshouldhaveknown”ofthehumanrightsviolationscommittedbytheirsubordinatepolice 32-37; Defendants activelyencouragedandincitedthecrackdownonFalunGongsupporters. patterns ofrepressionandabusewerewidespread,pervasive,widelyreported,thatboth human rightsviolationscommittedbythepoliceandsecurityforces.Bothcomplaintsallegethat Lian City.” “played amajorpolicy-makingandsupervisoryroleinthepoliciespracticesthatwerecarriedout Da alleges thatDefendantXiaactivelyencouragedrepressiveactsdirectedatFalunGongpractitionersand for aidersandabettorsoftortureextrajudicialkillings.”).Asnotedabove,the 319887 at*16(“[T]heCourtfindsthatthelanguageandlegislativehistoryofTVPAsupportsliability is intendedtoapplythosewho“ordered,abetted,orassisted”intheviolation); international law.”); liability applyundertheATCAtothosewhoassistothersincommissionoftortsthatviolatecustomary Mehinovic which wasintendedtosupplementandenhanceremediesundertheATCA,reinforcesthisconclusion. leastasbroadastandardshould applyinthecontextofestablishing powertopreventit.”103F.3dat776.WhiletheNinth Circuitthereforedidnothaveoccasiontoruleon permittedafindingliabilityif, Xia basisforliability.Significantly, itdoessointhecontextofestablishing commanderliabilitycouldbepredicatedonthemore expansive“shouldhaveknown”standard,as 49 The factsallegedalsoestablishthatDefendantsLiuandXiakneworshouldhaveknownofthe The doctrineofaidingandabettingapplicableundertheATCA,presumablyTVPA Itshouldbenotedthatin , 198F.Supp.2dat1355(“UnitedStatescourtshaverecognizedthatprinciplesofaccomplice Compl.¶¶14-24,28.Underthesecircumstances,itmaybeinferredthatbothdefendants Xia Compl.¶¶15,16,23. see also Ford theInternationalTribunalreFormerYugoslavia,and , 289F.3dat1288; S.Rep. No.249-102,at8-9andn.16(TVPASenatereportstatesthatstatute inter alia Hilao

III , “Marcosknewofsuchconductbythe , thecourt Ford see S.Rep.No.102-249,at9(“‘commandresponsibility’ . 87 See 49 rejecteddefendant’schallengetothejuryinstruction 289 F.3dat1288 civil liability.Sucharesultwould cf. Xuncaxv.Gramajo . In ReYamashita criminal Wiwa Xia militaryandfailedtouse liability. Complaintineffect See , 2002WL

Liu –establishthe Afortiorari Compl.¶¶ , 886F. bein , United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 in itsuseofvaryingdescriptions ofthestandardforcommandresponsibility. have known”oftheabuses. endorses the tolerated to beperson“effectivelyactingasamilitarycommander” underArticle28(a). alleged defendants herein; in theory in thecontextofcriminalliability,logicsuggeststhat the impositionofcivilliabilitymayproceedon Id. crimes” andthattheconcernedactivities“werewithin theeffectiveresponsibilityandcontrol disregarded 183/9th, 17I.L.M.999, forces commander orperson“eitherknewor, “superior andsubordinaterelationships.”As criminal liabilityupona“militarycommanderorpersoneffectively Court (asamended imposed uponDefendantsLiuandXia. Gong supporters. than takingstepstopreventtherepressiveacts,activelyencourageandincitedrepressionofFalun crimes orpunishsubordinatesaftercommission).ThePlaintiffsallegethatDefendantsLiuandXia,rather available at Tribunal forRwanda,U.N.SCOR,49thSess.,atart.6(3),Doc.S/RES/955(1994)(accord) S/RES/827 (1993)(accord) Statute ofInternationalTribunalforFormerYugoslavia,U.N.SCOR,48thSess.,atart.7(3),Doc. 183/9th (failuretotake“allnecessaryandreasonablemeasures”withintheirpowerspreventviolations); Statute oftheInternationalCriminalCourt,art28(1)(b)and(2)(c),July12,1999,U.N.Doc.A/CONF. at 777 failed totake“allfeasiblemeasureswithintheirpower”preventtheallegedabuses. thecontextofinstantcasesisimmaterialgiven thebreadthofallegationsmadeagainsttwo atart.28(2)(a-b).Again,evenifadistinctionisdrawn betweenmilitarycommandersandciviliansuperiors werecommittingorabouttocommitsuchcrimes.”Art.28(a),July17,1998,U.N.DocA/Conf. ofresponsibility.Inanyevent,thedistinctionbetween “shouldhaveknown”and“consciousdisregard” repressionandabusesarearguablyparamilitary-like organizations,defendantscouldwellbedeemed (quoting Finally, To Accordingly, commandresponsibilityunderbothAmericanandinternationallawprinciples,maybe Finally, theallegationsofbothcomplaints,takenasawhole,establishthatDefendantsLiuandXia orknowinglyignored”abuses –languagewhichmightsuggestahigherstandard ofliability,italso besure,atleastonesourceofinternationallaw–theRomeStatuteInternationalCriminal informationwhichclearlyindicated,thatthesubordinates werecommittingorabouttocommitsuch http://www.ictr.org;s In althoughtheSenateReportonTVPAreferstocommand liabilityforthosewho“authorized, reYamashita ProtocoltotheGenevaConventionsofAugust12,1949,16I.L.M.1391); eitherstandardismet.Furthermore,sincethepolice andsecurityforcesinvolvedinthe onNov.10,1998andJuly12,1999)–drawsadistinctionbetweentheimpositionof 1017.Astoothers,liabilityrequiresthatthe“superioreitherknew,orconsciously S.Rep.No.102-249,at9. ItappearsthatSenatedidnotintendanydifference available at standardofcommandresponsibility wherethecommander“kneworshould ee alsoFord owingtothecircumstancesattime,shouldhaveknownthat http://www.un.org/icty/legaldoc/index.htm;StatuteofInternational tomilitarycommanders,liabilitymaybeestablishedwherethe , 289F.3dat1288-89(failuretopreventcommissionof 88 actingasmilitarycommander”andallother Hilao III ofthesuperior.” see , 103F.3d Rome abroader United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Dated: June11,2003 Plaintiffs’ motionsforentryofdefaultjudgmentshouldbe II in torture; (2)Ms.Petitin violations oftherights(1)DoeIandIIin default judgmentsbeentereddeclaringthatDefendantsLiuandXiaareresponsiblerespectivelyfor consideration ofjusticiabilityconcernsandtheunusualposturethesecases,thisCourtrecommendsthat discretion indecidingwhethertoenterdefaultjudgments,particularlytheanalysisofmerits, Liu Considering allthefactorsestablishedin andPlaintiffACin EDWARDM.CHEN Liu IX. tobefreefromcruel,inhuman,ordegradingtreatment;and(3)DoeI CONCLUSION &RECOMMENDATION Xia tobefreefromarbitrarydetention.Inallotherrespects,the Eitel v.McCool,supra, Liu 89 andPlaintiffACin United StatesMagistrateJudge /s/ DENIED andtheremainingclaimsbedismissed. whichinformtheCourt’s Xia tobefreefrom