kim v. north korea – memo & order

7/27/2019 Kim v. North Korea Memo & Order

1/36

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

______________________________

)

HAN KIM, et al., )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 09-648 (RWR)

)

DEMOCRATIC PEOPLES REPUBLIC )

of KOREA, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

______________________________)

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Pl ai nt i f f s Han Ki m ( Han) and Yong Seok Ki m ( Yong) br i ng

t hi s ci vi l act i on under t he t er r or i sm except i on of t he For ei gn

Sover ei gn I mmuni t i es Act ( FSI A) , 28 U. S. C. 1605A( c) , seeki ng

damages agai nst of f i ci al s, empl oyees and agent s of def endant

Democrat i c Peopl e s Republ i c of Korea ( DPRK) i n connect i on wi t h

t he J anuary 16, 2000 abduct i on of Reverend Ki m Dong Shi k

( Rever end Ki m) , who i s Han s f ather and Yong s brother .

Fol l owi ng hi s abduct i on, Rever end Ki m was f or ci bl y t r ansf er r ed t o

Nor t h Kor ea wher e t he pl ai nt i f f s al l ege he was r epeat edl y

t or t ur ed by of f i ci al s, empl oyees and agent s of DPRK.

Pl ai nt i f f s f i l ed sui t and ser ved DPRK f ol l owi ng t he

r equi r ement s of 28 U. S. C. 1608( a) - ( b) . DPRK f ai l ed t o answer

or ot her wi se r espond t o t he compl ai nt , and pl ai nt i f f s secur ed

ent r y of def aul t under Fed. R. Ci v. P. 55( a) . The pl ai nt i f f s

t hen moved f or def aul t j udgment and have submi t t ed proposed

Case 1:09-cv-00648-RWR Document 56 Filed 06/14/13 Page 1 of 36


2/36

- 2 -

f i ndi ngs of f act , al ong wi t h suppor t i ng decl ar at i ons and

document ary evi dence, and pr oposed concl usi ons of l aw.

The FSI A permi t s cour t s t o exerci se subj ect mat t er

j ur i sdi ct i on and enter j udgment s of l i abi l i t y agai nst f or ei gn

st at es onl y wher e a pl ai nt i f f pl eads and pr oduces sat i sf act or y

evi dence t hat a f or ei gn st at e s conduct f al l s wi t hi n one of t he

enumerat ed except i ons t o sover ei gn i mmuni t y. 28 U. S. C.

1605A( a) , ( c) . The pl ai nt i f f s her e r el y on t he except i on f or

t or t ur e, ar gui ng t hat [ t ] he evi dence submi t t ed demonst r at es t hat

i t i s f ar mor e l i kel y than not t hat Rever end Ki m suf f er ed and

cont i nues t o suf f er t he tor t ur e and br ut al condi t i ons met ed out

t o al l enemi es of t he DPRK unf or t unat e enough t o f al l i nt o t he

hands of t he DPRK s secur i t y ser vi ces. Pl s. Pr oposed Fi ndi ngs

of Fact s and Concl usi ons of Law ( Pl s. Pr oposed Fact s) at 42.

However , pl ai nt i f f s evi dence r egar di ng DPRK s al l eged t r eat ment

of Rever end Ki m appear s i nsuf f i ci ent t o meet t he hi gh st andar d

r ecogni zed i n t hi s ci r cui t t hat i s set by t he FSI A s def i ni t i on

of t or t ur e. Because t he FSI A pr ecl udes j ur i sdi ct i on over t hi s

act i on agai nst a f or ei gn sover ei gn f or conduct not shown by

sat i sf act or y evi dence t o meet t he hi gh st andar d set f or pr oof of

t or t ur e, t he pl ai nt i f f s mot i on f or def aul t j udgment wi l l be

deni ed but t he case wi l l be cer t i f i ed f or an i nt er l ocut or y

appeal .



3/36

- 3 -

DI SCUSSI ON

I . J URI SDI CTI ON AND LI ABI LI TY UNDER THE FSI A

Bef or e Congress amended t he FSI A i n 2008 t o add the

1605A( c) pr i vat e r i ght of act i on, t he D. C. Ci r cui t expl ai ned

t hat at base, [ t ] he FSI A i s undoubt edl y a j ur i sdi ct i onal st at ut e

whi ch, i n speci f i ed cases, el i mi nat es f or ei gn sover ei gn i mmuni t y

and opens t he door t o subj ect mat t er j ur i sdi ct i on i n t he f eder al

cour t s. Pr i ce v. Soci al i st Peopl e s Li byan Ar ab J amahi r i ya, 294

F. 3d 82, 87 ( D. C. Ci r . 2002) ; see al so Mar i t i me I nt l Nomi nees

Est abl i shment v. Republ i c of Gui nea, 693 F. 2d 1094, 1099 ( D. C.

Ci r . 1982) ( [ T] he absence of i mmuni t y i s a condi t i on t o the

pr esence of subj ect mat t er j ur i sdi ct i on. ) . The door i s opened

onl y f or cases that f al l i nt o one of t he st at ut e s speci f i cal l y

enumerat ed except i ons. Here, Han and Yong r el y on t he except i on

el i mi nat i ng f orei gn sover ei gn i mmuni t y i n cases i n whi ch money

damages are sought agai nst a f or ei gn st at e f or per sonal i nj ur y or

deat h t hat was caused by an act of t or t ur e, [ or ] ext r aj udi ci al

ki l l i ng, . . . i f such act . . . i s engaged i n by an of f i ci al ,

empl oyee, or agent of such f or ei gn st at e whi l e act i ng wi t hi n t he

scope of hi s or her of f i ce, empl oyment , or agency. 28 U. S. C.

1605A( a) ( 1) . The FSI A i mposes t he addi t i onal j ur i sdi ct i onal

r equi r ement s t hat t he f orei gn st ate have been desi gnated as a

st at e sponsor of t er r or i sm dur i ng a speci f i ed per i od, t hat t he

cl ai mant or vi ct i m have been a Uni t ed St at es nat i onal at t he t i me



4/36

- 4 -

of t he t or t ur e, and t hat t he f or ei gn st at e have been af f or ded a

r easonabl e oppor t uni t y t o ar bi t r at e t he cl ai m. 28 U. S. C.

1605A( a) ( 2) . Sect i on 1605A( c) provi des t he pr i vat e r i ght of

act i on f or a U. S. ci t i zen agai nst such a f or ei gn st at e f or

per sonal i nj ur y or deat h caused by an act of t or t ur e engaged i n

by t he f orei gn stat e s of f i ci al s act i ng i n t hei r of f i ci al

capaci t y. 28 U. S. C. 1605A( c) . I n act i ons under t hi s

pr ovi si on, a f or ei gn st at e shal l be vi car i ousl y l i abl e f or t he

act s of i t s of f i cer s, empl oyees, or agent s. I d.

Because pl ai nt i f f s must al l ege t he el ement s of a cl ai m under

1605A( c) i n order t o meet t he requi r ement s f or wai ver of

f or ei gn sover ei gn i mmuni t y, l i abi l i t y wi l l exi st whenever t he

j ur i sdi ct i onal r equi r ements of 1605A( a) ar e proven. See

Ki l bur n v. I sl ami c Republ i c of I r an, 699 F. Supp. 2d 136, 155

( D. D. C. 2010) ( [ T] he 1605A( c) cause of act i on i s f ul f i l l ed by

demonst r at i ng that t he f or ei gn sover ei gn per f or med act s descr i bed

i n subsect i on ( a) ( 1) of 1605A, whi ch addr esses i mmuni t y and

subj ect mat t er j ur i sdi cti on. . . . Al t hough an anal ysi s of a

f or ei gn sover ei gn s pot ent i al i mmuni t y and l i abi l i t y shoul d be

conduct ed separ at el y, t he el ement s of i mmuni t y and l i abi l i t y

under 1605A( c) are essent i al l y t he same i n t hat 1605A( a) ( 1)

must be f ul f i l l ed t o demonst r at e t hat a pl ai nt i f f has a cause of

act i on. ) ; see al so Gat es v. Syr i an Ar ab Republ i c, 580 F. Supp.

2d 53, 64- 69 ( D. D. C. 2008) ( expl ai ni ng t hat 1605A( c) pr ovi des a



5/36

- 5 -

pr i vat e r i ght of act i on wher e subj ect mat t er j ur i sdi ct i on exi st s

under 1605A( a) ) .

The FSI A adopt s t he def i ni t i on of t or t ure cont ai ned i n

sect i on 3 of t he Tor t ur e Vi ct i ms Pr ot ect i on Act ( TVPA) . 28

U. S. C. 1605A( h) ( 7) ( ci t i ng 28 U. S. C. 1350 not e) . The TVPA

def i nes t or t ur e as

any act , di r ect ed agai nst an i ndi vi dual i n t heof f ender s cust ody or physi cal cont r ol , by whi ch sever epai n or suf f er i ng ( ot her t han pai n or suf f er i ng ar i si ngonl y f r om or i nher ent i n, or i nci dent al t o, l awf ul

sanct i ons) , whet her physi cal or ment al , i si nt ent i onal l y i nf l i ct ed on t hat i ndi vi dual f or suchpur poses as obt ai ni ng f r om t hat i ndi vi dual or a t hi r dper son i nf or mat i on or a conf essi on, puni shi ng t hati ndi vi dual f or an act t hat i ndi vi dual or a t hi r d per sonhas commi t t ed or i s suspect ed of havi ng commi t t ed,i nt i mi dat i ng or coer ci ng t hat i ndi vi dual or a t hi r dper son, or f or any reason based on di scr i mi nat i on ofany ki nd.

TVPA, Pub. L. No. 102- 256, 3( b) ( 1) , 106 St at . 73, 73 ( 1992) .

The amended compl ai nt al so al l eges t hat Reverend Ki m was

t ort ur ed t o death by of f i cer s, empl oyees and agent s of def endant

Nor t h Kor ea[ , ] Am. Compl . 27, and t hat Reverend Ki m s murder

t hus qual i f i es under 28 U. S. C. 1605A as an ext r aj udi ci al

ki l l i ng, i d. 33. The FSI A adopt s t he def i ni t i on of

ext r aj udi ci al ki l l i ng cont ai ned i n t he TVPA: a del i ber at ed

ki l l i ng not aut hor i zed by a pr evi ous j udgment pr onounced by a

r egul ar l y const i t ut ed cour t af f or di ng al l t he j udi ci al guar ant ees

whi ch ar e r ecogni zed as i ndi spensabl e by ci vi l i zed peopl es.

TVPA, Pub. L. No. 102- 256, 3( a) , 106 St at . 73, 73 ( 1992) .



6/36

- 6 -

Cour t s have f ound t hat ext r aj udi ci al ki l l i ng occur s, f or exampl e,

wher e a def endant del i ber at el y ki l l s i ndi vi dual s by a t ar get ed or

del i ber at e bombi ng, see, e. g. , Owens v. Republ i c of Sudan, 826 F.

Supp. 2d 128, 150 ( D. D. C. 2011) ; Val or e v. I sl ami c Republ i c of

I r an, 700 F. Supp. 2d 52, 74 ( D. D. C. 2010) , or del i ber at el y

assassi nat es or execut es an i ndi vi dual , see Ovei ssi v. I sl ami c

Republ i c of I r an, 573 F. 3d 835, 839- 40 ( D. C. Ci r . 2009) ; Ki l bur n,

699 F. Supp. 2d at 152- 53; Bakht i ar v. I sl ami c Republ i c of I r an,

571 F. Supp. 2d 27, 34 ( D. D. C. 2008) . Her e, pl ai nt i f f s have not

al l eged a t ar get ed bombi ng or a del i ber at e execut i on. I nst ead,

by al l egi ng t hat Rever end Ki m was t or t ur ed t o death and t hat t hi s

mur der qual i f i es as an ext r aj udi ci al ki l l i ng, t he pl ai nt i f f s must

show t hat Nor t h Kor ean agent s del i ber at el y ki l l ed Rever end Ki m by

t ort ur i ng hi m. Thus, t he pl ai nt i f f s ext raj udi ci al ki l l i ng cl ai m

r el i es squarel y upon an adequat e showi ng t hat Reverend Ki m was

t or t ur ed.

The D. C. Ci r cui t has emphasi zed t he hi gh st andar d t hat t he

st at ut or y def i ni t i on of t or t ur e i mposes. I n Pr i ce, an

i nt er l ocut or y appeal of a di st r i ct cour t or der r ej ecti ng Li bya s

cl ai m of sover ei gn i mmuni t y i n i t s mot i on t o di smi ss, t he cour t

of appeal s consi der ed t he suf f i ci ency of t he compl ai nt s

al l egat i ons of t or t ur e. The ci r cui t s r easoni ng mer i t s

r ecount i ng i n some det ai l :



7/36

- 7 -

The sever i t y r equi r ement i s cr uci al t o ensur i ng t hatt he conduct pr oscr i bed by t he Convent i on and t he TVPAi s suf f i ci ent l y ext r eme and out r ageous t o war r ant t heuni ver sal condemnat i on t hat t he t er m t or t ur e bot h

connot es and i nvokes . . . . [ O] nl y act s of a cer t ai ngr avi t y shal l be consi der ed t o const i t ut e t or t ur e. . . . The t erm t or t ure, . . . i s usual l y reservedf or ext r eme, del i ber at e and unusual l y cr uel pr act i ces,f or exampl e, sust ai ned syst emat i c beat i ng, appl i cat i onof el ect r i c cur r ent s t o sensi t i ve par t s of t he body,and t yi ng up or hangi ng i n posi t i ons t hat cause ext r emepai n . . . . The cri t i cal i ssue i s t he degr ee of pai nand suf f er i ng t hat t he al l eged t or t ur er i nt ended t o,and act ual l y di d, i nf l i ct upon t he vi ct i m. The mor ei nt ense, l ast i ng, or hei nous t he agony, t he mor e l i kel yi t i s t o be t or t ure . . . . [ I ] n order t o const i t ut e

t or t ur e, an act must be a del i ber at e and cal cul at ed actof an ext r emel y cr uel and i nhuman nat ur e, speci f i cal l yi nt ended t o i nf l i ct excr uci at i ng and agoni zi ng physi calor ment al pai n or suf f er i ng . . . . [ T] or t ur e does notaut omat i cal l y r esul t whenever i ndi vi dual s i n of f i ci alcust ody ar e subj ect ed even t o di r ect physi cal assaul t .Not al l pol i ce br ut al i t y, not ever y i nst ance ofexcessi ve f or ce used agai nst pr i soner s, i s t or t ur eunder t he FSI A . . . . [ I ] t i s especi al l y i mpor t antf or t he cour t s t o ensur e t hat f or ei gn st at es ar e notst r i pped of t hei r sover ei gn i mmuni t y unl ess t hey havebeen charged wi t h actual t or t ur e, and not mer e pol i cebrut al i t y.

Pr i ce, 294 F. 3d at 92- 93 ( i nt er nal quot at i ons and ci t at i ons

omi t t ed) . I n addi t i on, f or abuse t o const i t ut e t or t ur e i t must

be i nf l i cted i nt ent i onal l y, not mer el y i nci dent al l y. I d. at 93

( I n or der t o l ose i t s sover ei gn i mmuni t y, a f or ei gn st at e must

i mpose suf f er i ng cruel l y and del i ber at el y, r at her t han as t he

unf or eseen or unavoi dabl e i nci dent of some l egi t i mat e end. ) .

I n l i ght of t hi s meani ng, t he cour t f ound i nsuf f i ci ent t o

wai ve sover ei gn i mmuni t y al l egat i ons t hat pl ai nt i f f s wer e hel d



8/36

- 8 -

f or appr oxi mat el y t hr ee mont hs i n a pol i t i cal pr i son wher e they

al l egedl y endur ed depl or abl e condi t i ons whi l e i ncar cer at ed,

i ncl udi ng ur i ne- soaked mat t r esses, a cr amped cel l wi t h

subst andard pl umbi ng t hat t hey were f orced t o share wi t h seven

ot her i nmat es, a l ack of medi cal car e, and i nadequat e f ood, and

f ur t her wer e ki cked, cl ubbed and beaten by pr i son guards, and

i nt er r ogated and subj ect ed t o physi cal , ment al and ver bal abuse.

I d. at 86 ( i nt er nal quot at i ons omi t t ed) . The Pr i ce cour t f ur t her

f ound the compl ai nt i nadequat e because i t says vi r t ual l y not hi ng

about t he pur pose of t he al l eged t or t ur e. I d. at 94; see al so

Si mpson v. Soci al i st Peopl e s Li byan Ar ab J amahi r i ya, 326 F. 3d

230, 234 ( D. C. Ci r . 2003) ( f i ndi ng al l egat i ons of f or ci bl y

r emovi ng passenger f r om cr ui se shi p, hol di ng passenger

i ncommuni cado and t hr eat eni ng her wi t h deat h i f she moved f r om

her quar t er s di d not r i se t o t he l evel of t or t ur e under t he FSI A

and st at e a cl ai m) .

Pr i ce consi der ed t he suf f i ci ency of t or t ur e al l egat i ons when

t he def endant s moved t o di smi ss t he compl ai nt f or l ack of subj ect

mat t er j ur i sdi cti on. Pr i ce s r easoni ng i s equal l y i nst r ucti ve

f or det er mi ni ng whet her a pl ai nt i f f i n a def aul t pr oceedi ng has

est abl i shed subj ect mat t er j ur i sdi ct i on. When a cour t r evi ews

unchal l enged f act ual al l egat i ons on a mot i on t o di smi ss, t he

al l egat i ons are assumed t o be t r ue f or pur poses of assessi ng



9/36

- 9 -

subj ect mat t er j ur i sdi ct i on. Pr i ce, 294 F. 3d at 93. Si mi l ar l y,

f or t he pur poses of exami ni ng subj ect mat t er j ur i sdi ct i on on a

mot i on f or ent r y of def aul t under t he FSI A, cour t s accept t he

pl ai nt i f f s f act ual al l egat i ons as t rue. Si sso v. I s l ami c

Republ i c of I r an, 448 F. Supp. 2d 76, 81 & n. 5 (D. D. C. 2006)

( r easoni ng on mot i on f or ent r y of def aul t i n FSI A pr oceedi ng t hat

cour t was pr ecl ude[ d] . . . at this stage of the litigation f rom

maki ng f act ual f i ndi ngs t hat ar e i nconsi st ent wi t h t he

al l egat i ons of t he compl ai nt and expl i ci t l y accept ed al l of

pl ai nt i f f s f act ual al l egat i ons as t r ue[ . ] ) . However , t o

est abl i sh subj ect mat t er j ur i sdi ct i on, t he al l egat i ons must be

suf f i ci ent l y det ai l ed. At t he pl eadi ngs st age, t he Pr i ce cour t

accor di ngl y f ound i nadequat e the al l egat i ons bef or e i t , hol di ng

t hat

pl ai nt i f f s compl ai nt of f er s no usef ul det ai l s aboutt he nat ur e of t he ki cki ng, cl ubbi ng, and beat i ngs t hatpl ai nt i f f s al l egedl y suf f er ed. As a r esul t , t her e i sno way t o det er mi ne f r om t he pr esent compl ai nt t hesever i t y of pl ai nt i f f s al l eged beat i ngs - - i ncl udi ngt hei r f r equency, dur at i on, t he par t s of t he body atwhi ch t hey were ai med, and t he weapons used t o car r yt hem out - - i n or der t o ensur e t hat t hey sat i sf y t heTVPA s r i gorous def i ni t i on of t or t ure.

Pr i ce, 294 F. 3d at 93. Beyond t he pl eadi ngs st age, pl ai nt i f f s

have t o pr ove t he mer i t s of t hei r cl ai ms bef or e t hey can obt ai n

a def aul t judgment and t he evi dence they pr esent wi l l have t o

pr ovi de suppor t f or t he t heor i es of l i abi l i t y t hey al l ege.



10/36

- 10 -

Si sso, 448 F. Supp. 2d at 79 n. 2. I t f ol l ows that pl ai nt i f f s

must pr ovi de suf f i ci ent l y det ai l ed pr oof of t hei r al l egat i ons

t hat DPRK agent s t or t ur ed Rever end Ki m i n order t o ensure t hat

t he conduct sat i sf [ i es] t he TVPA s r i gor ous def i ni t i on of

t or t ur e. Pr i ce, 294 F. 3d at 93.

I I . STANDARDS FOR DEFAULT J UDGMENT

Def aul t j udgment agai nst a f or ei gn st at e shal l be ent er ed

onl y wher e a pl ai nt i f f establ i shes hi s cl ai m or r i ght t o r el i ef

by evi dence t hat i s sat i sf act or y t o t he Cour t . 28 U. S. C.

1608( e) . The sat i sf act or y t o t he cour t standar d i s i dent i cal

t o t he st andar d f or ent er i ng def aul t j udgment agai nst t he Uni t ed

St at es under Fed. R. Ci v. P. 55( d) ( r equi r i ng cl ai mant t o

est abl i sh[ ] a cl ai m or r i ght t o r el i ef by evi dence t hat

sat i sf i es t he cour t ) . Hi l l v. Republ i c of I r aq, 328 F. 3d 680,

683 ( D. C. Ci r . 2003) ( ci t i ng H. R. Rep. No. 94- 1487, at 26

( 1976) ) . Nei t her st andar d, however , i s easi l y def i ned. See

Smi t h ex r el . Smi t h v. I sl ami c Emi r at e of Af ghani st an, 262 F.

Supp. 2d 217, 223 ( S. D. N. Y. 2003) ( observi ng t hat [ t ] he i ssue

appear s t o have def i ed def i ni t i ve r esol ut i on l ar gel y because i n

most cases t he evi dence of t he def aul t i ng def endant s l i abi l i t y

i s qui t e compel l i ng and t hus t he mat t er can be deci ded wi t hout a

mor e conci se meani ng of evi dence sat i sf act or y t o t he cour t ) .

The D. C. Ci r cui t has not addr essed t he quest i on, and l ower cour t s



11/36

- 11 -

have ar t i cul at ed var yi ng r at i onal es f or what quant um of evi dence

i s sat i s f act ory.

Some cour t s i n FSI A def aul t pr oceedi ngs have f ound t o be

sat i sf act or y evi dence t hat t hey descr i bed as cl ear and

convi nci ng. See, e. g. , Wei nst ei n v. I sl ami c Republ i c of I r an,

184 F. Supp. 2d 13, 16 ( D. D. C. 2002) ( f i ndi ng j ur i sdi ct i onal

f act s est abl i shed by cl ear and convi nci ng evi dence, whi ch woul d

have been suf f i ci ent t o est abl i sh a pr i ma f aci e case i n a

cont est ed pr oceedi ng) ; Mousa v. I sl ami c Republ i c of I r an, 238 F.

Supp. 2d 1, 3 ( D. D. C. 2001) ( same) . But t he r easoni ng of t hese

cases suggest s st r ongl y - and i n some cases i ndi cat es expl i ci t l y

- - t hat cl ear and convi nci ng evi dence was consi der ed a

suf f i ci ent , r at her t han a necessar y, quant um of pr oof . See,

e. g. , Campuzano v. I sl ami c Republ i c of I r an, 281 F. Supp. 2d 258,

269 ( D. D. C. 2003) ( concl udi ng t hat t he pl ai nt i f f s have gone

beyond t he necessar y bur den of evi dence sat i sf act or y t o the

cour t and have pr oven each el ement by cl ear and convi nci ng

evi dence) .

Ot her cour t s have dr awn an anal ogy bet ween the FSI A def aul t

st andar d and t hat f or j udgment as a mat t er of l aw, ei t her af t er a

j ury t r i al or on summar y j udgment . One cour t hel d t hat t he FSI A

def aul t st andar d cal l [ s] f or pr oof by evi dence of a nat ur e and

qual i t y suf f i ci ent t o suppor t summar y j udgment under Fed. R. Ci v.



12/36

- 12 -

P. 56, namel y, oral or wr i t t en t est i mony under oat h, made upon

per sonal knowl edge by wi t nesses compet ent t o t est i f y to t he

mat t er s st at ed t her ei n. Hi l l v. Republ i c of I r aq, 175 F. Supp.

2d 36, 38 n. 4 ( D. D. C. 2001) ( r ef er r i ng t o t hen- cur r ent Rul e

56( e) ) . 1 I n Ungar v. I sl ami c Republ i c of I r an, 211 F. Supp. 2d

91, 98 ( D. D. C. 2002) , t he cour t consi der ed t he Hi l l st andar d,

among other s, but t hen pur por t ed t o opt f or t he st andard f or

j udgment as a mat t er of l aw af t er a j ury t r i al , set f or t h i n

Feder al Rul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 50( a) , whi ch t he cour t descr i bed

as a l egal l y suf f i ci ent evi dent i ar y basi s f or a r easonabl e j ur y

t o f i nd f or pl ai nt i f f . I d. at 98. 2 Sever al subsequent cour t s,

see, e. g. , Gates, 580 F. Supp. 2d at 63, have adopt ed as t he

1Thi s case was r eversed i n par t by Hi l l v. Republ i c of I r aq,

328 F. 3d 680 ( D. C. Ci r . 2003) . The D. C. Ci r cui t r ej ect ed t hebur den of pr oof on damages f or def aul t j udgment t hat t he di st r i ctcour t ar t i cul at ed, but di d not addr ess t he quest i on of t heFSI A s pl ai nt i f f s bur den on pr oof on l i abi l i t y. Hi l l , 328 F. 3dat 683- 84.

2 The Federal Rul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedure 50( a) st andar d i s mor e

st r i ngent t han t he Ungar cour t s f or mul at i on suggest s. J udgmentas a mat t er of l aw agai nst a part y may be gr ant ed onl y i f t hecour t f i nds t hat a r easonabl e j ur y woul d not have a l egal l ysuf f i ci ent evi dent i ar y basi s t o f i nd f or t he par t y on [ an]i ssue. Fed. R. Ci v. P. 50( a) ; see al so Ander son v. Li ber t yLobby, I nc. , 477 U. S. 242, 250 ( 1986) ( hol di ng that t he summaryj udgment st andar d mi r r or s t he st andar d f or a di r ect ed ver di ctunder Feder al Rul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 50( a) , whi ch i s t hat t het r i al j udge must di r ect a ver di ct i f , under t he gover ni ng l aw,t her e can be but one r easonabl e concl usi on as t o t he ver di ct ) .I n t hi s l i ght , t he st andar ds act ual l y appl i ed i n Hi l l and Ungarare vi r t ual l y i dent i cal .



13/36

- 13 -

st andar d t hat t he pl ai nt i f f s must put f or t h a l egal l y suf f i ci ent

prima facie case. See, e. g. , Ki l bur n, 699 F. Supp. 2d at 150.

I nt er pr et i ng t he sat i sf act or y to t he cour t st andar d t o

r equi r e a l egal l y suf f i ci ent prima facie case best account s f or

t he post ur e of def aul t pr oceedi ngs under t he FSI A. Wher e t he

def endant has not part i ci pated i n t he pr oceedi ngs and t her e has

been no oppor t uni t y f or di scover y, pl ai nt i f f s cannot be expect ed

t o meet a t ypi cal st andard f or j udgment as a mat t er of l aw.

However , t he pl ai nt i f f s evi dence must be r i gor ous enough t o

suppor t t he f act s necessar y f or j ur i sdi ct i on.

I n FSI A def aul t pr oceedi ngs, t he cour t may accept as t r ue

t he pl ai nt i f f s uncont r over t ed evi dence. Wachsman v. I sl ami c

Republ i c of I r an, 603 F. Supp. 2d 148, 155 ( D. D. C. 2009)

( i nt er nal quot at i ons omi t t ed) ( quot i ng El ahi v. I sl ami c Republ i c

of I r an, 124 F. Supp. 2d 97, 100 ( D. D. C. 2000) ) ; see al so Gat es,

580 F. Supp. 2d at 63 ( same) ; Al ej andr e v. Republ i c of Cuba, 996

F. Supp. 1239, 1243 ( S. D. Fl a. 1997) ( same) . The evi dence

pr ovi ded, however , i s subj ect t o t he Feder al Rul es of Evi dence.

See, e. g. , Dal i ber t i v. Republ i c of I r aq, 146 F. Supp. 2d at 21

n. 1 ( D. D. C. 2001) ( not i ng t hat [ i ] n t he absence of def ense

counsel , t he Cour t used par t i cul ar car e t o dr aw t he . . .

f i ndi ngs of f act and concl usi ons of l aw f r om admi ssi bl e t est i mony

i n accor dance wi t h t he Feder al Rul es of Evi dence) . Hear say



14/36

- 14 -

evi dence t her ef or e i s nor mal l y i nadmi ssi bl e because i t l acks

suf f i ci ent i ndi ci a of r el i abi l i t y. Exper t wi t nesses, however ,

may r el y on hearsay evi dence t o r each t hei r concl usi ons. Fed. R.

Evi d. 703. Pl ai nt i f f s may pr esent t hei r evi dence i n t he f or m of

af f i davi t s or decl ar at i ons, see Campuzano, 281 F. Supp. 2d at 268

( ci t i ng Wei nst ei n, 184 F. Supp. 2d at 19) , and an evi dent i ar y

hear i ng i s not r equi r ed bef or e a def aul t j udgment agai nst a

f or ei gn st at e i s ent er ed. See Ben- Raf ael v. I sl ami c Republ i c of

I r an, 540 F. Supp. 2d 39, 43 ( D. D. C. 2008) .

I I I . PLAI NTI FFS EVI DENCE

Pl ai nt i f f s have submi t t ed t hei r own decl ar at i ons, as wel l as

decl ar at i ons f r om f ami l y member Dani But l er , and f r om mul t i pl e

exper t s on Nor t h Kor ea. Exhi bi t s i ncl ude congr essi onal

r esol ut i ons r el at i ng to Rever end Ki m s abduct i on, and pr ess

mat er i al s, book excer pt s and r epor t s f r om human r i ght s

organi zat i ons and t he U. S. St ate Depart ment about Nort h Korea.

The pl ai nt i f f s r el y i n par t i cul ar on t he deci si on of a Sout h

Kor ean cour t t hat t r i ed and convi ct ed a DPRK i nt el l i gence agent

f or cr i mes i ncl udi ng t he abduct i on of Rever end Ki m. Pl ai nt i f f s

have pr ovi ded a swor n Engl i sh t r ansl at i on of t hat deci si on. See

Decl ar at i on of J . D. Ki m ( cer t i f yi ng t r ansl at i on of Deci si on of

Seoul J oong Ang J i Bang Cour t , Cr i mi nal Par t 23 ( Sout h Kor ean

cour t deci si on) ) . The j udgment of t he Sout h Kor ean cour t i s a



15/36

- 15 -

pr oper subj ect of j udi ci al not i ce under Feder al Rul e of Evi dence

201 t o est abl i sh t he f act of f or ei gn l i t i gat i on and t he r esul t i ng

act i ons of t he f or ei gn cour t . Fed. R. Evi d. 201 ( per mi t t i ng

j udi ci al not i ce of a f act t hat i s not subj ect t o r easonabl e

di sput e because i t can be accur at el y and r eadi l y det er mi ned f r om

sour ces whose accuracy cannot r easonabl y be quest i oned) ; see,

e. g. , J or dan ( Ber muda) I nv. Co. , Lt d. v. Hunt er Gr een I nvs. Lt d. ,

154 F. Supp. 2d 682, 689 ( S. D. N. Y. 2001) ( t aki ng j udi ci al not i ce

of f or ei gn cour t j udgment ) ; Luxpr o Cor p. v. Appl e I nc. , No. C 10-

03058 J SW, 2011 WL 1086027, at *3 ( N. D. Cal . Mar ch 24, 2011)

( same) . A decl ar at i on cer t i f yi ng under penal t y of per j ur y t hat

t he t r ansl at i on of t he deci si on i s t r ue and cor r ect accompani es

t he deci si on and suf f i ces to est abl i sh i t s accur acy. See 28

U. S. C. 1746. Reci t ed bel ow, wi t hout an at t empt t o par se t he

admi ssi bi l i t y of al l of i t , i s t he evi dence pr esent ed by t he

pl ai nt i f f s.

Nor t h Korean r ef ugees who were abl e to escape to Chi na

woul d st ay i n secr et saf e- houses t hat non- gover nment al

or gani zat i ons and rel i gi ous humani t ar i an gr oups had est abl i shed

or t hat Chi nese l ocal s i n t he ar ea wi t h et hni c Korean descent

woul d suppor t . Repor t of Yoshi kuni Yamamot o ( Yamamot o Decl . )

17. I n r esponse, t he DPRK est abl i shed a net work of l ocal

agent s i n Chi na under DPRK s secur i t y ser vi ces t o abduct



16/36

- 16 -

def ect ors and t he humani t ar i an worker s who assi st ed t hem. I d.

18, 23. On Sept ember 17, 2002, DPRK l eader Ki m J ong- I l

admi t t ed publ i cl y to Pr i me Mi ni st er Koi zumi of J apan t hat DPRK

secur i t y ser vi ces had engaged i n ki dnappi ng J apanese ci t i zens

bet ween 1977 and 1983. Decl ar at i on of Ernest C. Downs ( Downs

Decl . ) 20.

I n 1993, Reverend Ki m moved t o Chi na t o work as a mi ss i onary

pr ovi di ng humani t ar i an and r el i gi ous ser vi ces t o t he f ami l i es of

Nor t h Korean def ect ors and r ef ugees who had f l ed across t he Si no-

Kor ean border seeki ng asyl um. Yamamot o Decl . 20. He had

pr evi ousl y worked wi t h t he Speci al Ol ympi cs i n Chi na and worked

t o r ai se money f or medi cal suppl i es f or needy chi l dr en. He

l ear ned of t he pl i ght of Nor t h Kor ean r ef ugees and at once

commi t t ed hi msel f t o ai d t hi s di sadvant aged communi t y.

Decl ar at i on of Han Ki m ( Han Decl . ) 19, 21. Rever end Ki m set

up numer ous r ef ugee shel t er s and a school f or expat r i ate Nort h

Korean chi l dr en and handi capped persons i n t he Chi nese t own of

Yanj i . He named t he school t he School of Love. Yamamot o Decl .

20.

DPRK i nt el l i gence agent Hua was convi ct ed on Apr i l 21, 2005

by a Sout h Kor ean Cour t i n Seoul , f or hi s i nvol vement i n pl anni ng

and execut i ng var i ous abduct i ons of ci vi l i ans f r om Chi na to Nor t h

Kor ea f ol l owi ng t he i nst r uct i ons of a seni or DPRK i nt el l i gence



17/36

- 17 -

of f i ci al . Sout h Kor ean cour t deci si on at 1. One of t he cr i mes

f or whi ch Hua was convi ct ed was hi s di r ect i nvol vement i n

pl anni ng and carr yi ng out t he abduct i on of Rever end Ki m. I d. at

2. Hua was sent enced t o t en years i mpr i sonment . I d. at 1. The

pl ai nt i f f s al l ege t hat agent s pr osecut ed f or abduct i ng Rever end

Ki m pr ovi ded i nf or mat i on concer ni ng Rever end Ki m s t or t ur e i n

Nor t h Kor ea, and ci t e t o t he Sout h Kor ean cour t deci si on f or

suppor t . Pl s. Pr oposed Fact s at 8; Revi sed Pr oposed Fi ndi ngs of

Fact s and Concl usi ons of Law at 18. However , t he cour t deci si on

makes no r ef er ence t o Rever end Ki m bei ng t or t ur ed i n Nort h Korea.

Members of t he Uni t ed Stat es Congr ess have i nvest i gat ed t he

DPRK pol i cy of abduct i ng f orei gner s and have i ssued var i ous

r esol ut i ons r egar di ng t he i ssue. On J une 11, 2002, t he House of

Repr esent at i ves i ssued a resol ut i on ur gi ng t he gover nment s of t he

Uni t ed St at es, Sout h Kor ea and Chi na to seek a f ul l account i ng

f r om t he DPRK r egardi ng t he wher eabouts of Reverend Ki m. Downs

Decl . 25, Ex. A. On J ul y 11, 2005, t he House of

Repr esent at i ves i ssued a r esol ut i on condemni ng t he DPRK s use of

abduct i ons and demandi ng t he ret ur n of i ndi vi dual s bei ng hel d i n

Nor t h Kor ea. I d. 25, Ex. C. On J anuar y 28, 2005, an I l l i noi s

congr essi onal del egat i on, i ncl udi ng t hen- Uni t ed St at es Senat or

Barack Obama, sent a l et t er t o Nor t h Korean Ambassador t o t he

Uni t ed Nat i ons Pak Gi l Yon, whi ch speci f i cal l y asked t hat Nor t h



18/36

- 18 -

Kor ea f or t hwi t h i nvest i gat e t he ci r cumst ances of Rever end Ki m s

abduct i on and f at e, and whi ch st at ed t hat i t s si gnat or i es woul d

not suppor t t he removal of t he DPRK f r om t he St at e Depart ment s

l i st of St at e Sponsor s of Ter r or i sm unt i l t he wher eabout s of

Rever end Ki m had been made known. I d. 25, Ex. E. Thi s l et t er

was f ol l owed by a l et t er f r om Repr esent at i ve Henr y Hyde i n hi s

capaci t y as t he Chai r man of t he House Commi t t ee on I nt ernat i onal

Rel at i ons, dat ed November 4, 2005, af t er t he I l l i noi s

congr essi onal del egat i on had r et ur ned f r om a t r i p t o J apan. I d.

25, Ex. F.

A r ecent l y decl assi f i ed i nt er nal St at e Depar t ment cabl e

dat ed Febr uar y 3, 2000, f r om r epr esent at i ves st at i oned i n Seoul

communi cat i ng wi t h headquart ers i n Washi ngt on, D. C. , st ates t hat

a l ocal Chi nese paper r epor t ed t hat Chi nese i nvest i gat or s had

st r ong evi dence t hat Rever end Ki m was ki dnapped f r om Chi na by

DPRK agent s who had cr ossed over i nto Chi na i n l at e December t o

pl an t he abduct i on. I d. 26, Ex. G. The cabl e - - aut hor ed a

mer e two weeks af t er Rever end Ki m s abduct i on - - f ur t her r eport ed

t hat t en peopl e wer e i nvol ved i n Rever end Ki m s ki dnappi ng,

i ncl udi ng a coupl e posi ng as Nor t h Kor ean def ect ors, and t hat

Rever end Ki m was hel d host age i n Chi na bef ore bei ng t r anspor t ed

i nt o Nor t h Kor ea by hi s capt ors. I d. The St at e Depar t ment s

2003 count r y r eport on Nort h Korea di scusses Nort h Korea s



19/36

- 19 -

r esponsi bi l i t y f or di sappear ances and r ef er s t o unconf i r med

r eport s t hat i n J anuary 2000 Nort h Korean agent s ki dnaped a Sout h

Kor ean ci t i zen, Rever end Ki m Dong Shi k, i n Chi na and t ook hi m t o

Nor t h Kor ea. Decl . of Rober t Tol chi n, Dkt . No. 37 at 3. The

St at e Depar t ment al so r ecount s t hat Nor t h Korea engaged i n

t or t ur e i ncl udi ng sever e beat i ngs, el ect r i c shock, pr ol onged

per i ods of exposur e, humi l i at i ons such as publ i c nakedness, and

conf i nement t o smal l puni shment cel l s[ . ] I d. at 4. The r epor t

descr i bes har sh pr i son condi t i ons i n Nor t h Kor ea wher e

st arvat i on and execut i ons were common and f ormer pr i soner s

r epor t ed sever e beat i ngs and t or t ur e i nvol vi ng wat er f or ced i nt o

a vi ct i m s st omach wi t h a rubber hose and pumped out by guar ds

j umpi ng on a board pl aced acr oss t he vi ct i m s abdomen[ . ] I d. A

2009 St at e Depart ment count r y r eport on human r i ght s pr act i ces i n

t he DPRK st at es t hat t he Nor t h Korean government was r esponsi bl e

f or di sappearances and t hat [ i ] n 2008 t he medi a report ed Sout h

Kor ean mi ssi onar y Ki m Dong- shi k had most l i kel y di ed wi t hi n a

year of hi s 2000 di sappear ance near t he Chi na- DPRK border .

Decl . of Rober t Tol chi n, Dkt . No. 38 at 3. The 2009 r epor t

r ei t er at es t he r epor t ed t or t ur e met hods and t he har sh condi t i ons

of t he pr i sons i n Nor t h Kor ea. I d. at 3- 4. However , t he St at e

Depart ment cabl e and r eport s do not pr ovi de any f i r st - hand

account s of Rever end Ki m s t r eatment , or addr ess t he natur e or



20/36

- 20 -

sever i t y of any t or t ur e Rever end Ki m suf f er ed, or speci f y t he

f r equency or dur at i on of t he act s of t or t ur e or t he par t s of t he

body at whi ch t hey were ai med or any weapons used t o car r y t hem

out .

Expert r esearch on human r i ght s abuses i n Nor t h Korea has

r epor t ed wi despr ead and syst emat i c r epr essi on by DPRK operat i ves

of DPRK ci t i zens and f or ei gn nat i onal s, speci f i cal l y by means of

f orced abduct i ons and conf i nement i n kwan-li-so, or pol i t i cal

penal - l abor col oni es. The r epor t s ar e based on f i r st - hand

account s and sat el l i t e photogr aphy, among other data.

Decl arat i on of Prof essor Davi d Hawk ( Hawk Decl . ) 8- 13.

Prof essor Davi d Hawk has expert i se i n human r i ght s i n Nort h

Kor ea, has publ i shed extensi vel y on t hat i ssue, and has

i nt er vi ewed scor es of f or mer pr i soner s wi t h f i r st - hand account s

of t r eatment i n Nort h Korean camps. He decl ared t hat pr i soner s

of t he penal col oni es f ace harsh condi t i ons and t r eat ment ,

i ncl udi ng bel ow- subsi st ence f ood r at i ons, back- br eaki ng f or ced

physi cal l abor , br ut al beat i ngs, l ong- t er m sol i t ar y conf i nement ,

r ape, and f or ced abor t i on. I d. 14- 19. Pr i soner s ar e f or ced

t o per f orm l abor t wel ve or more hour s a day, seven days a week,

and r ecei ve onl y enough f ood t o be kept on t he verge of

st ar vat i on. I d. 14. Pr i soner s of t en endur e l ong- t er m

sol i t ary conf i nement i n puni shment cel l s whi ch do not have enough



21/36

- 21 -

space f or a per son t o compl et el y l i e down or s t and up, causi ng

i nmat es t o exper i ence a l oss of ci r cul at i on and at r ophy of l egs,

and of t en l eadi ng t o deat h wi t hi n sever al weeks. I d. 15.

Accordi ng to Hawk, [ a] t t empt ed escapees ar e aut omat i cal l y

execut ed and ot her maj or r ul e- br eaker s are publ i cl y execut ed by

hangi ng or f i r i ng squad i n f r ont of t he assembl ed pr i soner s of

t hat sect i on of t he camp. I d. Many i nmat es cannot wi t hst and

t he har sh condi t i ons of t hei r i mpr i sonment and a si gni f i cant

number di e wi t hi n a year of t hei r arr i val t o t he kwan- l i - so. A

l arge number of t hose who survi ve devel op per manent di sabi l i t i es

- - si gns of pr ematur e agi ng, hunchbacks and other physi cal

def or mi t i es due t o t he br ut al wor k condi t i ons and cel l si zes.

I d. 16. Hawk st at ed t hat a def i ni ng char act er i st i c of DPRK s

pol i t i cal penal - l abor col oni es i s t hat pr i soner s ar e not

f or mal l y ar r est ed, char ged ( or even t ol d of t hei r of f ense) , or

t r i ed i n any sor t of j udi ci al pr ocedur e. I d. 11.

Hawk sai d

[ w] hi l e I do not have any f i r st hand knowl edge aboutRever end Ki m s case speci f i cal l y, gi ven my extensi veexper i ence wi t h t he DPRK and t he manner i n whi chabduct ees r epat r i at ed f r om Chi na wer e usual l y t r eat ed,i t i s l i kel y t hat [ Rever end Ki m] woul d have been

i ni t i al l y hel d i n a ku-ryu-jang, or a DPRK pol i cedet ent i on and i nt er r ogat i on f aci l i t y, bef or e bei ngt r ansf er r ed t o a kwan-li-so. I t al so seems l i kel y t ome t hat Reverend Ki m, at a mi ni mum, woul d have beensubj ect ed t o t he har sh t r eat ment af f or ded t o al l of i t spr i soners. But because Reverend Ki m was such aval uabl e t arget of t he DPRK and so much pl anni ng,



22/36

- 22 -

ef f or t and ot her r esour ces had gone i nt o hi s abduct i on,i t i s cl ear t o me t hat Rever end Ki m was subj ect ed t oaddi t i onal br ut al i t y.

I d. 20. Repor t s and concerns about Reverend Ki m s t r eat ment

have ci r cul at ed wi del y enough t hat he woul d have been more l i kel y

t o be vi ewed by t he DPRK as a hi gh- val ue t arget war r ant i ng harsh

t r eat ment . I d. Hawk bel i eve[ s] t hat t he var i ous r epor t s of

[ Rever end Ki m s] t or t ur e and event ual st ar vat i on, f r om t he

account s of ot her pr i soner s, ar e l i kel y to be r el i abl e and

accur atel y descr i be how Rever end Ki m was t r eated by hi s capt ors

f r om t he t i me he was abduct ed and i ncar cer at ed unt i l hi s unt i mel y

deat h. I d. Hawk does not det ai l f r om t he r epor t s t he nat ur e or

sever i t y of t he t or t ur e Rever end Ki m suf f er ed, or t he f r equency

or dur at i on of t he act s of t or t ur e or t he par t s of t he body at

whi ch t hey were ai med or any weapons used t o car r y t hem out .

Er nest C. Downs, a f or mer seni or of f i ci al of t he U. S.

Depar t ment of Def ense who ser ved f r om 2001 t o 2008 on t he boar d

of t he Uni t ed St at es Commi t t ee f or Human Ri ght s i n Nor t h Korea,

st at ed t hat i t i s cl ear . . . t hat [ Rever end Ki m] was abduct ed

by DPRK agent s f r om Chi na and f or ci bl y br ought t o Nor t h Kor ea[ . ]

Downs Decl . 33. Accor di ng t o Downs, DPRK agent s have

speci f i cal l y abduct ed and i mpr i soned peopl e who have assi st ed

Nor t h Kor ean def ect or s as wel l as Chr i st i an mi ssi onar i es.

Suppl ement al Decl arat i on of Ernest C. Downs ( Downs Supp. Decl . )



23/36

- 23 -

6( b) - ( d) . Because Rever end Ki m assi st ed Nor t h Kor ean def ect or s

and was a Chr i st i an mi ssi onar y, he was l i kel y a val uabl e and

i mport ant t arget t o the gover nment and r ul i ng par t y of t he DPRK.

I d. 6( a) - ( c) . Based on t he t est i mony of ot her Nor t h Kor ean

pr i soner s, Downs st at es t hat pr i soner s ar e f or ced t o l abor f or

more t han t wel ve hour s per day, somet i mes si xt een hour s, and t he

f ai l ur e t o meet pr oduct i on quot as l eads t o addi t i onal har d

l abor , l ess f ood, and except i onal l y pai nf ul physi cal puni shment .

Downs Decl . 11; see al so Downs Supp. Decl . 11. Thus,

[ p] r i soner s i n Nor t h Kor ea s pol i t i cal pr i sons do not of t en

survi ve. Downs Supp. Decl . 7. Downs st ates t hat he i s aware

of t he t est i mony of 1000 f ormer Nor t h Korean pr i soners and Downs

does not know of any case i n whi ch t he f ormer pr i soner was not

subj ect ed t o t or t ur e whi l e i n t he pr i son camp. Downs Supp.

Decl . 10. Downs provi des numerous exampl es f r om f ormer

pr i soner s descr i bi ng i nmate mi st r eatment i n DPRK pr i sons and

f aci l i t i es. I n par t i cul ar , Downs submi t s an excer pt f r om Hawk s

book The Hi dden Gul ag whi ch r ecounts i nmat es who were subj ect t o

bur ni ngs, ski n pi er ci ng, wat er t or t ur e, bei ng hung by wr i st s or

upsi de- down, sl eep depr i vat i on, f ood depr i vat i on, f aci al and shi n

beat i ngs wi t h r i f l e but t s, whi ppi ngs wi t h bel t s, beat i ngs i n t he

l egs wi t h a wooden st ave, under si zed puni shment cel l s where

det ai nees coul d not st and up or l i e down and pl acement i n



24/36

- 24 -

puni shment cel l s f or a week or mor e. I d. , Ex. 1 at 148- 52.

Downs al so at t aches an account of a pr i soner who was hung by hi s

hands and f eet , st abbed i n t he l ower abdomen and hel d over a f i r e

unt i l he l ost consci ousness. I d. , Ex. 2 at 57- 58.

Downs al so opi nes t hat Rever end Ki m s ki l l i ng was mot i vat ed

by pol i t i cal consi der at i ons. Downs Decl . 7. I n hi s opi ni on,

a f or ei gner abduct ed by t he DPRK f or pol i t i cal pur poses, such as

Rever end Ki m, af t er el even year s woul d st i l l ei t her be

l angui shi ng i n a Nort h Korea pr i son camp or woul d have al r eady

been ki l l ed. I d. 34. He bel i eve[ s] t hat cr edi bl e

i nf ormat i on on [ Rever end Ki m s] t r eatment i n Nort h Korea has been

obt ai ned f r om def ect or s. I d. He st at es t hat Rever end Ki m

pr obabl y was subj ect ed t o sever e beat i ngs whi l e i n st r ess

posi t i ons ( such as whi l e suspended f r om t he cei l i ng) , near

st ar vat i on, and f or ced physi cal exer t i on t o t he poi nt of absol ut e

physi cal exhaust i on. Downs Supp. Decl . 9. I n addi t i on, Downs

asser t s t hat he i s cer t ai n t hat Rever end Ki m has been subj ect t o

except i onal l y pai nf ul , br ut al , and out r ageous t r eat ment whi l e i n

pr i son. I d. 8. Downs al so st at es t hat [ c] r edi bl e sour ces

have r epor t ed t hat Rever end Ki m di ed as a r esul t of hi s t or t ur e

and mal nut r i t i on. I d. 6( i ) . Thus, Downs concl udes t hat

Rever end Ki m s deat h r esul t ed f r om t or t ur e and mal nut r i t i on

del i ber at el y caused by hi s Nor t h Kor ean capt or s. I d. 13.



25/36

- 25 -

Downs nei t her i dent i f i es t he f or mer pr i soner s, t he def ect or s or

ot her credi bl e sour ces f or t hese concl usi ons, nor r eveal s t hei r

basi s of knowl edge about Reverend Ki m, nor says he has spoken

wi t h any of t hem. Downs does not pr ovi de det ai l s f r om t he

cr edi bl e i nf or mat i on r ecei ved concer ni ng t he sever i t y of Rever end

Ki m s beat i ngs, such as t hei r f r equency, dur at i on, t he par t s of

t he body at whi ch t hey were ai med, or t he weapons used t o car r y

t hem out .

Do Hee- Youn, a member of a Sout h Kor ea- based human r i ght s

or gani zat i on, hear d t hr ough t he i nf or mat i on net t hat Rever end

Ki m di ed i n Nor t h Kor ea as a resul t of t or t ur e and mal nut r i t i on

i n Febr uary 2001. Decl arat i on of Do Hee- Youn ( Do Hee- Youn

Decl . ) 13. Yoshi kuni Yamamot o, a r esearcher at a human r i ght s

or gani zat i on i n Washi ngt on, DC, st at ed gener al l y t hat i t was

r epor t ed t hat Rever end Ki m was t or t ur ed af t er r ef usi ng t o

col l aborat e and t hat he di ed i n Febr uary 2001 and was bur i ed i n

Di st r i ct 91 mi l i t ar y t r ai ni ng base i n Sangwon- r i near Pyongyang.

Yamamot o Decl . 22. Nei t her decl ar at i on suppl i ed detai l s about

t he nat ur e of t he r epor t ed t or t ur e.

Human Ri ght s Wat ch r el eased a 2007 repor t di scussi ng t he

mi st r eat ment of pr i soner s at det ent i on f aci l i t i es i n Nor t h Kor ea.

Thi s r eport st at es t hat

pr i soner s ar e subj ect t o st r i p sear ches, ver bal abuseand t hr eat s, beat i ngs, f or ced l abor , and l ack of f ood



26/36

- 26 -

and medi ci ne, among ot her abuses. Tor t ure and ot hercr uel and i nhuman t r eat ment appears wi despr ead and canoccur t hr oughout t he pr ocess of i ncar cer at i on i n Nor t hKor ea[ . ]

Nor t h Kor ea: Har sher Pol i ci es agai nst Bor der - Cr ossers , Dkt . No.

35- 1 at 8. I n par t i cul ar , t he r epor t i ncl udes account s f r om

f ormer pr i soner s who st ate t hat t he guards

woul d make [ pr i soners] si t down and st and up r epeat edl yunt i l [ t hey] col l apsed, or f or ced [ t hem] t o hang ont ocel l bar s or bang [ t hei r ] heads ont o cel l bar s. . . .Guards beat peopl e al l t he t i me - t hey used st i cks orbel t s. They al so sl apped or ki cked i nmat es f or

di sobedi ence.

I d. Si mi l ar l y, t he Uni t ed Nat i ons Speci al Rappor t eur on t he

si t uat i on of human r i ght s i n the DPRK r el eased a repor t whi ch

descr i bed what i t cal l ed DPRK s r ecor d of t or t ur e and i nhuman

t r eat ment , ar bi t r ar y det ent i on and use of pr i son camps. Pl s.

Supp. Submi ss i on of New Aut h. , Ex. 1, Human Ri ght s Counci l , Rep.

of t he Speci al Rappor t eur on t he si t uat i on of human r i ght s i n t he

DPRK, 22d Sess. , U. N. Doc. A/ HRC/ 22/ 57 ( Feb. 1, 2013) . Thi s

r epor t st at ed t hat , i n 2007, t her e wer e r epor t s t hat DPRK

aut hor i t i es engaged i n t or t ur e, publ i c execut i ons, and

per secut i on of pol i t i cal di ssi dent s. I d. , Annex 1 22. I n

2008, t he Secr et ar y- Gener al st at ed t hat r epor t s f r om DPRK

cont i nue t o i ndi cat e t r ends of t or t ur e, i nhumane condi t i ons of

det ent i on, publ i c execut i on, i l l - t r eat ment of r ef ugees and t he

Speci al Rappor t eur st at ed t hat



27/36

- 27 -

t he har sh condi t i ons i mposed by t he cr i mi nal j ust i cesyst em and r el at ed det ent i on gi ve r i se t o a pl et hor a ofabuses, i ncl udi ng t or t ur e and cr uel , i nhuman anddegr adi ng t r eatment . The abuses are ubi qui t ous, and

i ncl ude degr adi ng t r eat ment of deceased persons.

I d. , Annex 1 23. The UN Speci al Rapport eur ci t es 2011 r eport s

whi ch st ate t hat DPRK cor r ect i onal of f i cer s beat i nmat es and t hat

t or t ur e was occur r i ng at var i ous camps i n t he DPRK. I d. , Annex 1

25- 26. I n addi t i on, [ t ] he Secr et ar y- Gener al not ed i n 2012

t hat some repor t s al so i ndi cat e t he exi st ence of pr i son camps

wher e t or t ur e and execut i on are wi despread. I d. , Annex 1 27.

The r epor t i dent i f i es t he pol i t i cal l abor camps and st at es t hat

t he Speci al Rapport eur has consi st ent l y expr essed concer n about

unr easonabl e and abusi ve puni shment s and t or t ure and detent i on

wi t hout due pr ocess of l aw and t he har sh condi t i ons i n t he

camps where no cl ot hi ng i s provi ded and i nmat es ar e expect ed

t o work l ong hour s per f ormi ng manual l abour . I d. , Annex 1

48- 51, 54. Nei t her r epor t pr ovi des any f i r st - hand knowl edge

of Rever end Ki m s mi st r eat ment . The r epor t s do not det ai l t he

f r equency or dur at i on of t he act s of t or t ur e at t he DPRK pr i son

camps.

Pl ai nt i f f s ci t e an excer pt f r om Mel ani e Ki r kpat r i ck s 2012

book Escape f r om Nort h Korea t hat st ates t hat Rever end Ki m was

t ort ur ed and mur der ed by t he Nort h Koreans. Pl s. Supp.

Submi ssi on of New Aut hor i t y, Dkt . No. 55, Ex. 1 at 150- 51. The



28/36

- 28 -

excer pt st at es t hat Rever end Ki m was t r anspor t ed t o a pol i t i cal

pr i son camp and [ h]e appear s t o have been beat en and st arved to

deat h af t er r ef usi ng t o r enounce hi s r el i gi on. I d. at 152.

Ki r kpat r i ck al so st at es t hat accor di ng t o [ Rever end Ki m s]

f ami l y, hi s r emai ns ar e bel i eved t o be i n Peopl e s Ar my Camp 91,

a gar r i son on t he out ski r t s of Pyongyang. I d. ( f oot not e

omi t t ed) . Ki r kpat r i ck r epor t s as t he sour ce f or t hese det ai l s

t he pl ai nt i f f s amended compl ai nt and t he f i l i ngs docket ed i n

t hi s case. See Mel ani e Ki r kpat r i ck, Escape f r om Nor t h Kor ea 329

n. 20 ( 2012) . I n any event , t he Ki r kpat r i ck excer pt does not

det ai l t he nat ur e or sever i t y of t he t or t ur e, or t he f r equency or

dur at i on of t he act s of t or t ur e or t he par t s of t he body at whi ch

t hey were ai med or any weapons used t o car r y t hem out .

I V. J URI SDI CTI ON I N THI S CASE

Sect i on 1605A( a) ( 2) ( A) ( i ) ( I ) pr ovi des i n r el evant par t t hat

a cour t shal l hear a cl ai m under 1605A agai nst a f or ei gn st at e

i f t hat st at e was desi gnat ed as a st at e sponsor of t er r or i sm at

t he t i me t he [ t or t ur e or ext r aj udi ci al ki l l i ng] occur r ed, . . .

and . . . ei t her r emai ns so desi gnat ed when t he cl ai m i s f i l ed

under t hi s sect i on or was so desi gnat ed wi t hi n the 6- mont h per i od

bef or e t he cl ai m i s f i l ed under t hi s sect i on[ . ] Nor t h Kor ea was

desi gnat ed as a st at e sponsor of t er r or i sm i n 1988. SeeNot i ce,

Det er mi nat i on Pur suant t o Sect i on 6( j ) of t he Expor t



29/36

- 29 -

Admi ni st r at i on Act of 1979; Nort h Korea, 53 Fed. Reg. 3477- 01

( Feb. 5, 1988) . Nor t h Kor ea s desi gnat i on was resci nded on

Oct ober 11, 2008. See Not i ce, Resci ssi on of Det er mi nat i on

Regardi ng Nor t h Korea, 73 Fed. Reg. 63540- 01 ( Oct . 24, 2008) .

Thus, Nor t h Kor ea r emai ned desi gnat ed as a st at e sponsor of

t er r or i sm wi t hi n t he 6- mont h per i od bef or e t hi s act i on was f i l ed

on Apr i l 8, 2009.

Secti on 1605A( a) ( 2) ( A) ( i i ) ( I ) f ur t her r equi r es t hat t he

cl ai mant or t he vi ct i m was, at t he t i me t he act . . . occur r ed

. . . a nat i onal of t he Uni t ed St at es. An i ndi vi dual deemed t o

owe a permanent al l egi ance to t he Uni t ed St at es and who act i vel y

pur sues U. S. ci t i zenshi p can be hel d t o be a nat i onal of t he

Uni t ed St at es i n sat i sf acti on of 1605A( a) ( 2) ( A) ( i i ) ( I ) . See,

e. g. , Sal udes v. Republ i ca de Cuba, 577 F. Supp. 2d 1243, 1252

( S. D. Fl a. 2008) . At t he t i me of Rever end Ki m s abduct i on,

pl ai nt i f f Yong Ki m was a U. S. ci t i zen and pl ai nt i f f Han Ki m can

be deemed t o have been a U. S. nat i onal . He had l i ved i n t he U. S.

si nce 1992 and became a Permanent Resi dent owi ng a per manent

al l egi ance t o t he U. S. I n 1999, bef or e hi s f at her s abduct i on,

he began t he appl i cat i on pr ocess t o become a nat ural i zed Amer i can

ci t i zen wi t h t he i nt ent i on of r emai ni ng i n t hi s count r y.

Suppl ement al Decl ar at i on of Han Ki m at 1- 2.



30/36

- 30 -

For any pr oduct i on of pai n t o const i t ut e t or t ur e under t he

TVPA def i ni t i on, t he act must be pur posi ve, and not mer el y

haphazar d . . . [ or ] t he unf or eseen or unavoi dabl e i nci dent of

some l egi t i mat e end. Pr i ce, 294 F. 3d at 93. Pl ai nt i f f s

pr of f er ed evi dence i ncl udes exper t opi ni ons, a t ype of evi dence

t hat cour t s have credi t ed i n FSI A def aul t act i ons. See Ki l bur n,

699 F. Supp. 2d at 143, 152. Hawk assert s t hat DPRK s pol i cy i s

t o i mpr i son pol i t i cal pr i soner s and ot her s deemed t o be

opponent s of t he DPRK r egi me t o det er di ssent i n t he l arger

popul at i on[ . ] Hawk Decl . 10. Hawk and Downs st at e t hat

Reverend Ki m was t argeted by DPRK because of hi s humani t ar i an

act i vi t i es and because he was a Chr i st i an mi ssi onar y who

assi st ed Nor t h Korean def ect or s. Hawk Decl . 21; Downs Supp.

Decl . 6( a) - ( d) , 7. I n par t i cul ar , Downs st at es that he i s

vi r t ual l y cer t ai n t hat Rever end Ki m s ki l l i ng was mot i vat ed by

pol i t i cal consi der at i ons. Downs Supp. Decl . 7. Hawk adds

t hat i n DPRK s penal camps, pr i soner s are not f ormal l y ar r est ed,

char ged ( or even t ol d of t hei r of f ense) , or t r i ed i n any sor t of

j udi ci al procedure. Hawk Decl . 11. The Sout h Kor ean cour t

deci si on and t he exper t evi dence r ef l ect t hat Rever end Ki m was

abduct ed at t he behest of DPRK secur i t y f orces, not i n accor dance

wi t h any l egi t i mat e j udi ci al or ot her pr ocess, due t o Ki m s

r el i gi ous wor k and assi st ance to Nor t h Kor ean r ef ugees.



31/36

- 31 -

Ther ef or e, t he pl ai nt i f f s have suf f i ci ent l y shown t hat any

mi st r eat ment of Reverend Ki m was done pur posef ul l y.

However , t he pl ai nt i f f s submi ssi ons do not est abl i sh t he

sever i t y of t he t r eat ment of Rever end Ki m i n par t i cul ar , or t hat

hi s t r eat ment amount s t o tor t ur e under t he r i gor ous def i ni t i on of

t hat t er m adopt ed i n t he FSI A. DPRK s f ai l ur e t o r espond t o t he

compl ai nt or t o respond t o any of t he congr essi onal i nqui r i es

r egar di ng Rever end Ki m s f at e, i n par t , obscur es t he pr eci se

det ai l s of Rever end Ki m s t r eat ment f ol l owi ng hi s abduct i on by

DPRK agent s. Moreover , t he wi del y f ear ed nat ur e of DPRK

r epr essi on appears t o f orce t hose i ndi vi dual s who may know

detai l s about Reverend Ki m s whereabout s and t r eat ment t o convey

such i nf ormat i on spar i ngl y and anonymousl y. See, e. g. , Do Hee-

Youn Decl . 2 ( descr i bi ng net wor k of i ndi vi dual s t hat have

suppl i ed . . . i nf or mat i on concer ni ng Nor t h Kor ean mat t er s and

expl ai ni ng many of t hese i ndi vi dual s are kept conf i dent i al t o

ensur e t hei r saf et y f r om pot ent i al r et r i but i on agai nst t hem by

t he Nor t h Kor ean gover nment ) . Unf or t unat el y f or pl ai nt i f f s, no

D. C. Ci r cui t opi ni on appear s t o al l ow such ci r cumst ances t o

l essen t he pl ai nt i f f s exact i ng bur den of pr oof .

Her e, t he decl ar at i ons of t he pl ai nt i f f s and But l er r ef l ect

no act ual knowl edge of how Rever end Ki m was t r eat ed i n the DPRK.

The Sout h Kor ean cour t deci si on convi ct ed a DPRK agent of



32/36

- 32 -

abduct i ng Rever end Ki m, but does not r ef er t o Rever end Ki m bei ng

t or t ur ed. The congr essi onal r esol ut i ons and cor r espondence

sought , but di d not pr ovi de, det ai l s about Rever end Ki m s

t r eat ment . The St at e Depar t ment r epor t s di scussi ng abuse i n DPRK

pr i sons and medi a specul at i on t hat Rever ed Ki m di ed pr ovi de no

f i r st - hand account s det ai l i ng hi s t r eat ment . The r epor t s f r om

Human Ri ght s Wat ch and t he Uni t ed Nat i ons provi de no f i r st - hand

account s of Reverend Ki m s mi st r eat ment and do not detai l t he

f r equency or dur at i on of t he act s of t or t ur e at t he pr i son camps.

The Ki r kpat r i ck book excer pt r ecounts i nf or mat i on docket ed i n

t hi s case but adds no f i r st - hand i nf or mat i on about Rever end Ki m s

t r eat ment , or any det ai l s about t he nat ur e or sever i t y of hi s

t or t ur e, or t he f r equency or dur at i on of any act s of t or t ur e or

t he par t s of hi s body at whi ch t hey were ai med or any weapons

used t o car r y t hem out . Two of pl ai nt i f f s decl ar ant s, Do Hee-

Youn and Yoshi kuni Yamamot o, r ecounted hear say r eport s t hat

Rever end Ki m was t or t ur ed and di ed. The decl arant s di d not ,

t hough, r eveal t he sour ces of t he r epor t s, speci f y t hei r bases of

knowl edge, or pr ovi de usef ul det ai l s about t he natur e and

sever i t y of any t or t ur e.

The exper t s i n t hi s case descr i be condi t i ons at an

est abl i shed and ext ensi ve syst em of penal col oni es wher e t he DPRK

r egul ar l y hol ds abduct ees and pol i t i cal pr i soner s, and opi ne t hat



33/36

- 33 -

r epor t s f r om def ect or s st at i ng t hat Rever end Ki m was t or t ur ed and

i s ei t her st i l l i n cust ody or has di ed as a r esul t of hi s

t r eatment are cr edi bl e. However , Hawk does not r eport t hat t he

pr i soners he spoke wi t h had per sonal knowl edge of Reverend Ki m s

t r eatment . Hawk al so does not descr i be t he natur e or sever i t y of

t he t or t ur e Rever ed Ki m suf f er ed, or t he f r equency or dur at i on of

act s of t or t ur e upon hi m or t he par t s of t he body at whi ch t hey

were ai med or any weapons used t o car r y t hem out . Li kewi se,

Downs does not i dent i f y t he sour ces he deems cr edi bl e upon whom

he based hi s opi ni on t hat Rever end Ki m pr obabl y di ed as a r esul t

of del i ber at e t or t ur e and mal nut r i t i on. He does not r eveal t hei r

bases of knowl edge about Reverend Ki m or say whet her he has

spoken wi t h t hem. Nor does Downs pr ovi de detai l s r egardi ng t he

sever i t y of Rever end Ki m s beat i ngs. Pr i ce const r ai ns us f r om

empl oyi ng di scussi on about t he abuses gener al l y i n these camps t o

show t hat mi st r eatment of Rever end Ki m occur r ed t hat r ose t o the

l evel of t or t ur e under t he TVPA. As t he pl ai nt i f f s have not

sat i sf i ed t he r equi r ement s of t he FSI A, subj ect mat t er

j ur i sdi ct i on i s l acki ng.

Al t hough t he pl ai nt i f f s have not pr ovi ded suf f i ci ent

evi dence t o suppor t j ur i sdi ct i on under t he FSI A, a di st r i ct cour t

r ul i ng on whet her f act s i n a compl ai nt adequat el y al l ege a basi s

f or i nvoki ng t he t or t ur e except i on under t he FSI A shoul d be



34/36

- 34 -

i mmedi at el y appeal abl e. See Pr i ce, 294 F. 2d at 92 ( al l owi ng

Li bya t o i mmedi at el y appeal a di st r i ct cour t deci si on r ej ect i ng

Li bya s ar gument t hat t he f act s al l eged i n t he compl ai nt do not

br i ng t he case wi t hi n an FSI A i mmuni t y except i on) . Moreover ,

t hi s case qual i f i es f or an i nt er l ocut or y appeal under 28 U. S. C.

1292( b) . That st at ut e pr ovi des t hat an i nt er l ocut or y appeal

may be cert i f i ed t o t he cour t of appeal s when

a di st r i ct j udge . . . shal l be of t he opi ni on t hatsuch or der i nvol ves a cont r ol l i ng quest i on of l aw as t o

whi ch t her e i s subst ant i al gr ound f or di f f er ence ofopi ni on and t hat an i mmedi at e appeal f r om t he order maymat er i al l y advance t he ul t i mat e ter mi nat i on of t hel i t i gat i on.

28 U. S. C. 1292( b) . Under 1292( b) , a cont r ol l i ng quest i on of

l aw i s one t hat woul d r equi r e r ever sal i f deci ded i ncor r ect l y or

t hat coul d mat er i al l y af f ect t he cour se of l i t i gat i on wi t h

r esul t i ng savi ngs of t he cour t s or t he par t i es r esour ces[ ] and

i ncl ude[ s] i ssues t hat woul d t er mi nat e an act i on i f t he di st r i ct

cour t s or der wer e r ever sed. APCC Ser vs. , I nc. v. Spr i nt

Communi c ns Co. , L. P. , 297 F. Supp. 2d 90, 95- 96 (D. D. C. 2003)

( i nt er nal ci t at i ons and quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . Her e, t he

det er mi nat i on of subj ect mat t er j ur i sdi ct i on qual i f i es as a

cont r ol l i ng quest i on of l aw. See i d. Al so, t her e i s a

subst ant i al gr ound f or di f f er ence of opi ni on about whet her

pl ai nt i f f s have pr esent ed t he requi si t e quant um of evi dence t o

show t hat Rever end Ki m was tor t ur ed under t he FSI A. Cf . Doe v.



35/36

- 35 -

Qi , 349 F. Supp. 2d 1258, 1312- 17 ( N. D. Cal 2004) ( di scussi ng

Pr i ce and col l ect i ng cases appl yi ng t he st andar d f or suf f i ci ent

f act ual al l egat i ons t o al l ege t or t ur e under t he FSI A) . Fi nal l y,

[ w] hen t her e ar e subst ant i al gr ounds f or di f f er ence of opi ni on

as t o a cour t s subj ect mat t er j ur i sdi cti on, cour t s r egul ar l y

hol d that i mmedi ate appeal may mater i al l y advance t he ul t i mate

t er mi nat i on of t he l i t i gat i on. Al Maqal eh v. Gat es, 620 F.

Supp. 2d 51, 55 ( D. D. C. 2009) . Cer t i f i cat i on f or an

i nt er l ocut or y appeal i n t hi s case, t hen, i s war r ant ed.

CONCLUSI ON AND ORDER

Subj ect mat t er j ur i sdi ct i on over t hi s act i on depends i n par t

upon an adequat e demonst r at i on t hat Reverend Ki m was t or t ur ed

f ol l owi ng hi s abduct i on. Pl ai nt i f f s have not met t o t he cour t s

sat i sf act i on t he hi gh st andar d r ecogni zed by thi s ci r cui t under

t he FSI A f or showi ng t hat Rever end Ki m was t or t ur ed. Thus, t he

cour t l acks subj ect mat t er j ur i sdi ct i on over t hi s act i on. The

mot i on f or def aul t j udgment wi l l be deni ed, and t he case wi l l be

cer t i f i ed f or i nt er l ocut or y appeal on t he i ssue of t he r equi si t e

quant um of evi dence f or suf f i ci ent l y al l egi ng t or t ur e under t he

FSI A. Accor di ngl y, i t i s her eby

ORDERED t hat pl ai nt i f f s mot i on [ 14] f or def aul t j udgment

be, and her eby i s, DENI ED. I t i s f ur t her



36/36

- 36 -

ORDERED t hat t hi s case be, and her eby i s, cer t i f i ed f or

i mmedi ate appeal under 28 U. S. C. 1292( b) because i t i nvol ves a

cont r ol l i ng quest i on of l aw as t o whi ch t her e i s a subst ant i al

gr ound f or di f f er ence of opi ni on, and an i mmedi at e appeal may

mat er i al l y advance t he ul t i mat e t er mi nat i on of t hi s l i t i gat i on.

I t i s fur t her

ORDERED t hat al l pr oceedi ngs i n t hi s case be st ayed upon t he

appl i cat i on of t he pl ai nt i f f s f or an i nt er l ocut or y appeal under

28 U. S. C. 1292( b) of t he f i ndi ng t hat t he cour t l acks subj ect

mat t er j ur i sdi ct i on under t he FSI A.

SI GNED t hi s 14t h day of J une, 2013.

/ s/RI CHARD W. ROBERTSUni t ed St at es Di st r i ct J udge


kim v. north korea – memo & order

Documents