## Facts

- Dr. Joel Filártiga and his daughter, Dolly Filártiga, Paraguayan nationals, alleged that Dr. Filártiga’s 17-year-old son was kidnapped, tortured, and killed in Paraguay in 1976 for political reasons.
- The defendant, Américo Norberto Peña-Irala, a Paraguayan national and former Paraguayan police official, was alleged to have committed the torture under color of official authority.
- In 1979, plaintiffs filed a federal civil action in New York seeking damages under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), 28 U.S.C. § 1350, after Peña was found in the United States and served with process.
- The district court dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, reasoning that the “law of nations” largely governed relations between states and did not reach a state’s treatment of its own nationals.
- Plaintiffs appealed; the United States and human rights organizations participated as amici.

## Issues

1. Whether deliberate torture committed under color of official authority constitutes a “tort ... committed in violation of the law of nations” within the meaning of the ATS, 28 U.S.C. § 1350.
2. Whether modern customary international law governing the “law of nations” extends to a state’s treatment of its own citizens, such that nationality of the parties does not defeat ATS jurisdiction.
3. Whether ATS jurisdiction may be exercised when the alleged torture occurred abroad and the parties are foreign nationals, so long as the defendant is found in the United States and served with process.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal and remanded.
- The court held that official torture violates universally accepted norms of customary international law and therefore qualifies as a tort in violation of the law of nations for ATS purposes.
- The court held that ATS jurisdiction is available when an alleged torturer is found within the United States and served, even if the torture occurred abroad and both victim and defendant are foreign nationals.
- The court treated the ATS as jurisdictional and concluded it provides a federal forum to adjudicate claims based on sufficiently definite and universally accepted international law norms.
- The court noted but did not resolve on appeal potential defenses and prudential doctrines (including act of state and forum non conveniens), leaving them for consideration on remand.

## Legal Principles

- The ATS confers federal subject-matter jurisdiction over civil actions by aliens for torts committed in violation of the law of nations.
- Customary international law is part of federal law for purposes of identifying actionable “law of nations” norms under the ATS.
- The prohibition of torture committed under color of official authority is a clear, universal, and obligatory norm of customary international law.
- The “law of nations” is not limited to inter-state conduct; it includes certain minimum standards regulating a state’s treatment of individuals, regardless of the victim’s nationality.
- For ATS jurisdiction, the presence of the defendant in the United States and service of process can supply a sufficient basis for a federal forum when the claim alleges a recognized international-law violation.
- Official torturers may be treated as offenders of universal concern, comparable to pirates and slave traders, supporting adjudication in a forum where the defendant is found.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit held that alleged official torture states a tort in violation of the law of nations under the ATS and that federal courts have subject-matter jurisdiction when the alleged torturer is found and served in the United States, notwithstanding that the torture occurred abroad and involved only foreign nationals.


Filártiga v. Peña-Irala, 630 F.2d 876 (2d Cir. 1980)