[ad_1]
WASHINGTON – A high-stakes lawsuit involving victims of the USS Cole's attack in 2000 appeared to split the Supreme Court on Wednesday as judges struggled with the seemingly innocuous question of whether the US Supreme Court of Canada (USSR) said it was "deadly". Notice of pursuit was sent to the correct address.
The response has enormous consequences for both victims – they have obtained a default judgment of nearly $ 315 million against the Republican of Sudan – and apparently for the US government, which has declared that "no money is needed". a decision against Sudan could hurt international relations and endanger the legal position of the government in the world. .
It was a directive of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, according to which any lawsuit against a foreign government had to be "addressed and addressed" to the person in charge of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of this country.
Prosecutions against Sudan for providing material support to Al-Qaida's attack were sent to the Sudanese embassy in Washington. But Christopher Curran, a Washington lawyer representing Sudan, told the court that they should have been sent to the Foreign Minister's office in Khartoum.
If Curran is right, the judgments against the country would be canceled.
An appeal court considered the matter and decided to send a notice to the embassy. Another took Curran's side.
The judges seemed similarly divided.
"I have to say that … that would be my first thought: why would not I put it back at the embassy," Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. said. "Mail it to the Minister of Foreign Affairs. foreigners in a country and assuming that it gets there in a reasonable time, I think you are much more likely to reach them through the embassy. "
But Curran said the foreign minister did not have an office at the embassy. "So, sending the mail to this diplomatic mission would literally not comply with the legislation," he said.
Judge Elena Kagan said that nothing in the law stipulated that it should be addressed to the office of the Minister of Foreign Affairs. "Everyone understands that embassies are supposed to be the point of contact if you want to do something with a foreign government," she said.
Judge Samuel Alito Jr. also asked difficult questions. He noted that the law had been written before "the era of FedEx" and asked if it was really so simple to send a package with a "requested acknowledgment of receipt and that he's coming back from all over the world? "
Curran replied that what is known is that Congress has decided not to require such notifications to be filed with embassies because countries have opposed them.
Justice Department attorney Erica Ross argued that the embassy service could be a violation of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, which stipulates that local officials must be in good standing. an embassy are "inviolable".
But what harm does the United States see in postal notices to an embassy, Judge Brett Kavanaugh asked.
"The problem is that the United States has embassies around the world, of course, and it is quite problematic to replace every one of them to accept services on behalf of the United States," said Ross.
The deadly attack of October 12, 2000 against the Cole, while refueling in a port of Yemen, killed 17 American sailors – 15 men and two women – and wounded 42 others. Washington lawyer Kannon Shanmugam represents the families of the dead and wounded.
He said that it would be wrong to reject the judgments they received because of an "unspoken procedural requirement".
But he also had to face tough questions.
Judge Sonia Sotomayor stated that the wording "sent and forwarded" implied a sense of urgency to ensure that it was sent to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, rather than sending it to the Embassy of the United States.
"We can not ignore that this is not where the person is usually located," she said. "And this concept, I think, is the very essence of due process."
Judge Stephen Breyer said that research by his clerks had shown that two dozen countries, such as the United States, did not accept legal notices from their embassies. "I could not find anything in the other direction" that would support Shanmugam 's position, he told the lawyer.
Kavanaugh was also concerned. "What you are saying is that it is not a big problem to allow service in an embassy, even if the United States opposes it and even though, as Judge Breyer points out, no other country seems to allow it. "
Alito and Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg had a concrete problem: did the sending of mail to the embassy really inform Sudan of the action?
"Sudan has undoubtedly been informed of the dispute," said Shanmugam, before deciding not to run. It was only after the victims obtained a default judgment and tried to access Sudanese assets held in New York banks that Sudan filed its objections, he said.
Curran was wary when asked. He added that there was "nothing in the file" stating that the Sudanese Minister of Foreign Affairs had received the notice sent to the embassy, although one employee signed it. Following further questioning, he acknowledged that Sudan had been notified of the lawsuit before the default judgment was delivered.
If the court decides for Sudan, the family judgment is probably overturned and the court process has to start again. In this case, "Sudan is determined to appear and defend itself," Curran told Alito. "He believes that the default judgment was unfounded, he has substantial defenses and wishes to challenge the charges".
The case is the case Republic of Sudan c. Harrison.
