Editando Alien Tort Statute (sección)

=== ''Filartiga v. Pena-Irala'' y ''Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain'' ===
{{AP|Filartiga v. Pena-Irala}}{{AP|Sosa v. Álvarez-Machain}}
En ''Filartiga'', [[Joel Filártiga|dos ciudadanos]] [[Paraguay|paraguayos]] residentes en los Estados Unidos, representados por el [[Centro de Derechos constitucionales]], presentaron una demanda contra un ex [[jefe de policía]] paraguayo que también estaba viviendo en USA.<ref>630 F.2d 876 (2d Cir. 1980); Richard B. Lillich, ''Invoking International Human Rights Law in Domestic Courts'', 54 U. Cin. L. Rev. 367 (1985).</ref> Los demandantes alegaron que el acusado había torturado y asesinado a un miembro de su familia y se asumió la competencia bajo la ATS. La corte de distrito lo desestimó por [[falta de competencia]], al considerar que la "Ley de naciones {{maltrad|no regula el tratamiento de estado de sus propios ciudadanos|does not regulate a state's treatment of its own citizens|en}}. El [[Segundo Circuito de Cortes de Apelaciones de Estados Unidos]] revirtió la desestimación, manteniendo que {{maltrad|la ley de naciones contemporánea se ha expandido para prohibir la tortura sancionada por un estado|contemporary law of nations had expanded to prohibit state-sanctioned torture|en}}. La corte falló que los tratados multilaterales y las prohibiciones nacionales sobre la tortura evidencian una práctica estatal consistente de proscribir tortura oficial. El tribunal también determinó que las declaraciones de las [[Naciones Unidas]] como la [[Declaración Universal de Derechos Humanos]] manifiestan una expectativa de adherencia a la prohibición de tortura oficial. Así mismo, también declaró que el derecho a estar libre de tortura se había convertido en un principio de derecho internacional consuetudinario. Sin embargo, uno de los jueces de la audiencia del caso escribió más tarde que “no debe ser malinterpretado ni exagerado para respaldar la constatación de que todas (o casi todas) las normas internacionales de derechos humanos que se encuentran en la Declaración Universal o en los tratados internacionales de derechos humanos han madurado en el derecho internacional consuetudinario aplicable en los tribunales nacionales”.<ref>Lillich, ''supra'' note 8, at 401-02.</ref>
<!--
In ''Sosa,'' the Supreme Court held that the ATS does grant a cause of action, but only for any action "which violates definable, universal and obligatory norms" of international law.<ref>542 U.S. 692 (2004); Pamela J. Stephens, ''Spinning Sosa:  Federal Common Law, the Alien Tort Statute, and Judicial Restraint'', 25 B.U. Int'l L.J. 1, 32-33 (Spring, 2007).</ref>  The plaintiff in ''Sosa'', Alvarez, brought a claim under the ATS for arbitrary arrest and detention. Alvarez had been indicted in the United States for torturing and murdering a [[Drug Enforcement Agency]] officer. When the United States was unable to secure Alvarez's extradition, it paid Sosa, a Mexican national, to kidnap Alvarez and bring him into the United States. Alvarez claimed that his "arrest" by Sosa was arbitrary because the warrant for his arrest only authorized his arrest within the United States. The [[United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit]], applying the "specific, universal, and obligatory" test, held that Alvarez's abduction constituted arbitrary arrest in violation of international law.  The Supreme Court reversed, however, finding that the ATS only provides a cause of action for violations of those international norms "defined with a specificity comparable to the features of . . . 18th-century paradigms . . . ." The Court went on to hold, "[A] single illegal detention of less than a day, followed by the transfer of custody to lawful authorities and a prompt arraignment, violates no norm of customary international law so well defined as to support the creation of a federal remedy." Finally, the Court held that future courts should also consider certain principles limiting the recognition of a cause of action under the ATS, including "case-specific deference" to the political branches on questions of foreign policy.

===“Violación del derecho internacional”===
The Supreme Court held in ''Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain'' that the ATS provides a cause of action for violations of international norms that are as "specific, universal, and obligatory" as were the norms prohibiting violations of safe conducts, infringements of the rights of ambassadors, and piracy in the 18th century.<ref>D'Amore, ''supra'' note 2.</ref>  Courts have found [[torture]]; cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment; [[genocide]]; [[war crimes]]; [[crimes against humanity]]; summary execution; prolonged arbitrary detention; and [[forced disappearance]] to be actionable under the ATS.<ref>Pamela J. Stephens, ''supra'' note 10, at 5.</ref>  

Since ''Sosa'', courts have struggled to define the level of specificity required for a norm to be actionable under the ATS.<ref>Henry J. Steiner et al., International Human Rights in Context 1195-98 (3d ed. 2008), ISBN 978-0-19-927942-5.</ref>  For example, subsequent to ''Sosa'', the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit]] overturned prior lower court decisions that had found cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment actionable, noting that ''Sosa'' repudiated the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as a source of law under the ATS.<ref>''Aldana v. Del Monte Fresh Produce'', 416 F.3d 1242, 1247 (11th Cir. 2005).</ref>  Similarly, courts have held that [[ICESCR|economic, social, and cultural rights]] are too indeterminate to satisfy ''Sosa'''s specificity requirement.  For example, in ''Flores v. Southern Peru Copper Corp.'', the Second Circuit stated that the rights to life and to health are too indeterminate to constitute a cause of action under the ATS.<ref>414 F.3d 233 (2d Cir. 2003).</ref>

The [[United States District Court for the Northern District of California]], however, has held that the limits of a norm need not be defined with particularity to be actionable; rather, the norm need only be so defined that the particular acts upon which a claim is based certainly fall within the bounds of the norm.<ref>''Doe v. Qi'', 349 F.Supp.2d 1258 (N.D.Cal. 2004).</ref>  In ''Doe v. Qi'', the court stated, "The fact that there may be doubt at the margins -- a fact that inheres in any definition -- does not negate the essence and application of that definition in clear cases." The court also described how to determine whether specific actions fall within the proscriptions of an international norm, holding that the actions alleged should be compared with actions that international adjudicatory bodies have found to be proscribed by the norm in question.  It therefore examined decisions by institutions such as the [[Human Rights Committee]], the [[European Court of Human Rights]], and the [[African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights]] to determine that pushing, hitting, and choking a plaintiff during one day of incarceration did not constitute cruel, unusual, or degrading treatment, whereas forcing a hand into a plaintiff's vagina did constitute cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.

==Prominent cases under the Alien Tort Statute==
===Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum===
The plaintiffs in Kiobel were citizens of Nigeria who claimed that Dutch, British, and Nigerian corporations which were engaged in oil exploration and production aided and abetted the Nigerian government during the 1990s in committing violations of customary international law. ''See'' 621 F.3d 111 (2d Cir. Sept. 17, 2010). Plaintiffs sought damages under the ATS. The defendants moved to dismiss based on a two-pronged argument. First, they argued that customary international law itself provides the rules by which to decide whether conduct violates the law of nations where non-state actors are alleged to have committed the wrong in question. Second, they contended that no norm has ever existed between nations that imposes liability upon corporate actors. On September 29, 2006, the district court dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims for aiding and abetting property destruction; forced exile; extrajudicial killing; and violation of the rights to life, liberty, security, and association. It reasoned that customary international law did not define those violations with sufficient particularity. The court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss with respect to the remaining claims of aiding and abetting arbitrary arrest and detention; crimes against humanity; and torture or cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment. The district court then certified its entire order for interlocutory appeal to the Second Circuit based on the serious nature of the questions at issue. 

In a 2-1 decision issued on September 17, 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that corporations cannot be held liable for violations of customary international law, finding that: (1) under both U.S. Supreme Court and Second Circuit precedents over the previous 30 years that address ATS suits alleging violations of customary international law, the scope of liability is determined by customary international law itself; (2) under Supreme Court precedent, the ATS requires courts to apply norms of international law—and not domestic law—to the scope of defendants’ liabilities. Such norms must be “specific, universal and obligatory"; and (3) under international law, “corporate liability is not a discernible—much less a universally recognized—norm of customary international law,”<ref>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ben-kerschberg/corporate-executives-get-_b_791292.html#</ref> that the court could apply to the ATS, and that the plaintiffs’ ATS claims should indeed be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

===Doe v. Unocal===
{{AP|Doe v. Unocal}}
In September 1997, thirteen [[Burma|Burmese]] villagers filed suit against [[Unocal]] and their parent company, the Union Oil Company of California under the ATCA<ref>Doe I v. Unocal Corp.
395 F.3d 932 C.A.9 (Cal.),2002</ref> for alleged human rights violations, including forced labour, in the construction of the [[Yadana Project|Yadana gas pipeline project]] in [[Myanmar]], formerly Burma.<ref name=complaint-state-b>{{cite web |url=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b0/Doe_v_Unocal_Plaintiffs_Complaint_and_conformed_face_sheet.pdf |format=PDF|title=Plaintiff's Complaint for Damages |author=Kenderton Lynch |date=29 de septiembre de 2000 |accessdate=28 de diciembre de 2007}}</ref> EarthRights International, the [[Center for Constitutional Rights]], Paul Hoffman, Hadsell & Stormer, and Judith Brown Chomsky served as co-counsel to the plaintiffs. In December 2004, Unocal agreed to settle after a [[Motion (legal)|motion for summary judgment]] failed in the [[United States District Court for the Central District of California]].<ref>Mark D. Kielsgard, ''Unocal and the Demise of Corporate Neutrality'', 36 Cal. W. Int'l L.J. 185, 189 (2009).</ref>

===Wang Xiaoning v. Yahoo!===
{{AP|Wang Xiaoning}}

In April 2007, the World Organization for Human Rights USA filed a lawsuit against [[Yahoo!]] on behalf of Chinese dissident [[Wang Xiaoning]], claiming jurisdiction under the ATS.<ref>{{cite news|title= Second Amended Complaint| url=http://www.humanrightsusa.org/index2.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_view&gid=68&Itemid=80}}</ref>

:As noted in the Complaint, in 2001, Wang used a Yahoo! e-mail account to post anonymous writings to an Internet mailing list. Yahoo!, under pressure from the Chinese government, blocked that account. Wang set up a new account via Yahoo! in order to continue to share his pro-democracy material.  According to the Complaint, Yahoo! gave the Chinese government information that allowed authorities to identify and arrest Wang in September 2002.  Prosecutors in the Chinese courts cited Yahoo's cooperation.<ref>{{cite news|title= Advocates Sue Yahoo In Chinese Torture Case | date = 20 de abril de 2007| publisher= The Washington Post | url =http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/18/AR2007041802510.html?hpid=moreheadlines}}</ref>

The mother of [[Shi Tao]] (Guao Quingsheng) joined the lawsuit on behalf of her son.<ref>{{cite news|title= Yahoo sued by China Reporter | date = 11 de junio de 2007| publisher= Al Jazeera | url =http://web.archive.org/web/http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/94F29289-C5F1-4650-A3FA-061625408C04.htm}}</ref> Shi Tao, a Chinese journalist, was detained in 2004, and convicted for emailing a description of the Chinese government’s instructions to journalists for the upcoming anniversary of the 1989 Tiananmen Square Massacre<ref>http://www.humanrightsusa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=15&Itemid=35</ref> (in which representatives of [[People's Republic of China|PRC]] warned journalists of instabilities that might arise from marking the [[Tiananmen Square Protests of 1989|Tiananmen Square]] anniversary) to a New York-based pro-democracy forum.<ref>{{cite news|title= Shi Tao | date = 11 de junio de 2007| publisher= HRIC | url =http://www.hrichina.org/public/highlight/index.html}}</ref>

Both men were punished for speaking against the Chinese government after Yahoo!, through its Chinese subsidiary, provided their identifying information to the Chinese government.

Yahoo! settled the case in November 2007 for an undisclosed amount of money, although they did agree to cover the plaintiff's legal costs as a part of the agreement. In a statement released after the settlement was made public, Yahoo! said that it would "provide 'financial, humanitarian and legal support to these families' and create a separate 'humanitarian relief fund' for other dissidents and their families."<ref>{{cite news|title= Yahoo settles Chinese Dissident Lawsuit | date = 14 de noviembre de 2007| publisher= PC World | url =http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,139619-c,yahoo/article.html}}</ref>

===Bowoto v. Chevron Corp.===
{{AP|Bowoto v. Chevron Corp.}}
One high-profile ATS case involved claims by Nigerian villagers regarding events that occurred on a Chevron offshore drilling platform in 1998, when Nigerian soldiers suppressed a protest against Chevron's environmental and business practices. The protesters, with the help of nonprofit organizations including the [[Center for Constitutional Rights]], the Public Interest Lawyers Group, and EarthRights International, brought claims for wrongful death, torture, assault, battery, and negligence against Chevron, alleging that the company had paid the soldiers that landed on the platform and were therefore liable for the actions that they took. In December 2008, a jury found that Chevron was not liable.<ref>{{cite news| url=http://www.reuters.com/article/ousiv/idUSTRE4B093N20081202 | work=Reuters | title=Jury clears Chevron of charges in Nigeria clash | date=2 de diciembre de 2008}}</ref>

===Sinaltrainal v. Coca-Cola Company===
On August 11, 2009, the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued a decision in ''Sinaltrainal v. Coca-Cola Company''.<ref>http://web.archive.org/web/http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200615851.pdf</ref>  In this case, plaintiffs alleged that Coca-Cola bottlers in Colombia collaborated with Colombian paramilitary forces in "the systematic intimidation, kidnapping, detention, torture, and murder of Colombian trade unionists."  However, the district court dismissed the complaint and the Eleventh Circuit upheld that ruling.  In doing so, the Eleventh Circuit relied upon the Supreme Court's recent ''[[Ashcroft v. Iqbal]]'' decision [http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-1015.pdf] in addressing the adequacy of the complaint, which has must have "facial plausibility" to survive dismissal, and noted that Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure demands "more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation."  The Eleventh Circuit then applied the ''Iqbal'' standard to plaintiffs' allegations against Coca-Cola and held that they were insufficient to survive dismissal.

===Presbyterian Church of Sudan v. Talisman Energy, Inc.===
On October 2, 2009, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued another important ruling.   In ''Presbyterian Church of Sudan v. Talisman Energy, Inc.'', the Second Circuit imposed a higher pleading standard, requiring that "the mens rea standard for aiding and abetting liability in Alien Tort Statute actions is purpose rather than knowledge alone."<ref>http://web.archive.org/web/http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/5ee8965d-efbf-475c-9c0d-de151c267061/1/doc/07-0016-cv_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/5ee8965d-efbf-475c-9c0d-de151c267061/1/hilite/</ref> In this case, which involves allegations against a Canadian oil company concerning its purported assistance to the government in Sudan in the forced movement of civilians residing near oil facilities, the court concluded that "plaintiffs have not established Talisman's purposeful complicity in human rights abuses."  In reaching that conclusion, the Second Circuit stated that "the standard for imposing accessorial liability under the Alien Tort Statute must be drawn from international law; and that under international law a claimant must show that the defendant provided substantial assistance with the purpose of facilitating the alleged offenses."

===Civil suit against Chuckie Taylor===
{{AP|Charles McArthur Emmanuel}}
Charles McArthur Emmanuel<ref>"[http://web.archive.org/web/http://www.ice.gov/images/news/newsreleases/articles/090109washington_lg.jpg 090109washington_lg.jpg]." [[U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement]]. Retrieved on August 27, 2009.</ref> (also known as "Chuckie Taylor" or "Taylor Jr."), the son of [[Charles Taylor (Liberia)|Charles Taylor]], former [[President of Liberia]],<ref name="CNN">"[http://web.archive.org/web/http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/09/30/taylor.torture.trial.ap/index.html?iref=mpstoryview Ex-prisoner: Taylor's son laughed at torture]." ''[[CNN]]''. September 30, 2008.</ref> is a U.S. citizen, born in Boston to Charles Taylor Sr.'s college girlfriend. Raised by his mother in Florida until he was 17, Taylor Jr. traveled to Liberia in 1997 to live with his father.  While in Liberia, Taylor Jr. became the commander of the infamously violent Anti-Terrorist Unit (ATU), commonly known in Liberia as the "Demon Forces."

In 2006, U.S. officials arrested Taylor Jr. upon entering the United States (via the Miami International Airport) and the Department of Justice later charged him based on torture he committed in Liberia.<ref>{{cite news|title= Roy Belfast Jr. aka Chuckie Taylor Indicted on Torture Charges, Department of Justice| date = 6 de diciembre de 2006| url= http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2006/December/06_crm_813.html}}</ref> On October 20, 2008, a federal jury convicted Taylor Jr. of multiple counts of torture and conspiracy to torture.<ref>{{cite news|title= Roy Belfast Jr. A/K/A Chuckie Taylor Convicted on Torture Charges,  Department of Justice Press Release| date = 30 de octubre de 2008| url= http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2008/October/08-crm-971.html}}</ref> On January 9, 2009, he was sentenced to 97 years in prison.<ref>{{cite news|title= Roy Belfast, Jr., A/K/A Chuckie Taylor, Sentenced on Torture Charges, Department of Justice Press Release| date = 9 de diciembre de 2009| url= http://humanrightsusa.blogspot.com/2010/02/breaking-news-final-judgment-issued-in.html}}</ref>

That same day, the World Organization for Human Rights USA and the [[Florida International University College of Law]] filed a civil suit in the Southern District of Florida on behalf of five of Taylor Jr.’s victims pursuant to the Alien Tort Statute and the [[Torture Victim Protection Act]].<ref>http://www.humanrightsusa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=167&Itemid=150</ref> The plaintiffs won by default judgment on all counts and the civil trial to determine damages took place in late December 2009 and January 2010. In February 2010, the court found Taylor liable to the plaintiffs for damages of over $22 million.<ref>http://humanrightsusa.blogspot.com/search/label/Chuckie%20Taylor</ref>
-->

En 2004, los familiares de 14 obreros [[Argentina|argentinos]] [[Desaparecidos durante el Proceso de Reorganización Nacional|desaparecidos]] y 3 sobrevivientes presentaron una demanda en la [[Corte de San Francisco]] (California, Estados Unidos) por [[secuestro]], [[tortura]] y desaparición forzada contra [[Mercedes-Benz]].<ref name="elarg1">{{obra citada|url=http://tiempo.elargentino.com/notas/mercedes-benz-ira-juicio-civil-los-ee-uu-crimenes-de-dictadura|título=Mercedes Benz irá a juicio civil en los EE UU por crímenes de la dictadura|fechaacceso=21 de mayo de 2011|urlarchivo=https://web.archive.org/web/20110522061635/http://tiempo.elargentino.com/notas/mercedes-benz-ira-juicio-civil-los-ee-uu-crimenes-de-dictadura|fechaarchivo=22 de mayo de 2011}}</ref>