قالب وردپرس درنا توس
Home / World / Supreme Court rules against USS Cole victims in Sudan lawsuit

Supreme Court rules against USS Cole victims in Sudan lawsuit



The court, 8-1, said the victims did not properly report their claim to the Sudan government.

The ruling clears the way for the courts to exclude the $ 314 million default judgment awarded to families.

The case arose from the bombing of the USS Cole, which killed 17 US Navy sailors and 42 wounded when a boat next to the USS Cole stopped and exploded while docking in the port of Aden, Yemen.

Survivors and their family members filed a lawsuit against Sudan in 2010 claiming that Al Qaeda was responsible for the attack and that Sudan had materially supported Al Qaeda. While federal law in the United States generally rejects civil claims against foreign states, it does provide for exceptions for a country that has been designated a state sponsor of terrorism.

The challengers received a summons against Sudan by sending papers to the minister via the embassy in Washington, DC. After Sudan failed to respond within the statutory 60-day period, the court went into default with Sudan for just over $ 31

4 million. In 2014, Sudan finally appealed. The US attorney considered that the charge could not be delivered to the embassy and that any form of mail requesting a signed "receipt" from the prime minister was foreign affairs. "

" There are circumstances in which the rule of law requires strict requirements to be met, even if the stock of a particular case may be in the opposite direction, "wrote Justice Samuel Alito in his majority opinion.

The United States The States pleaded in support of Sudan, saying that 'sending papers to the Secretary of State in a place other than the country in question' deeply sympathizes with the exceptional injuries suffered by the victims', but that is not permitted by law.

The US does not accept such services in its messages abroad, and a verdict in favor of the challengers would complicate the external relations, argued the Attorney General of the Ministry of Justice, Erica Ross.

"The United States has embassies around the world," she said. "It is quite problematic to represent each one of them so that they can serve on behalf of the United States."

Steve Vladeck, CNN Supreme Court and professor at the University of Texas Law School, said it could potentially make it more difficult for victims to challenge lawsuits from foreign countries.

"Today's decision, though technical, is made It is more difficult for plaintiffs to sue before US courts for those countries that have an unreliable regular postal service," Vladeck said.

"Especially in cases like this one, where the lawsuit is filed against a country designated by the State Department as a" state sponsor of terrorism "and calls on the claimants to assert their claims against the State Department in the country's capital Serving his embassy in the US or the UN could make the continuation of these cases considerably more difficult, "he added.

A lower court upheld the ruling and ruled that the Foreign Service Immunity Act "does not specify a location where the papers are to be sent," and nothing in the law requires the papers to be sent to a location overseas "If the Congress wanted to send the broadcast to the Foreign Minister. Www.mjfriendship.de/de/index.php?op…80&Itemid=58 The main office of the Ministry abroad could have said it – but did it not ", said the 2nd US Court of Appeals 19659002. In court papers, Sudanese lawyers said Sudan" vehemently denies the allegations that it proves the material support "for Al Qaeda or caused the attack on the Cole."

Justice Clarence Thomas disagreed: "There is no evidence in this case that suggests the Sudanese Embassy rejected the service package addressed to its Secretary of State – just as it was free to do."

Source link