[ad_1]
Breaking News Emails
Receive last minute alerts and special reports. News and stories that matter, delivered the mornings of the week.
/ Source: Associated press
By Associated press
WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court on Wednesday debated the opportunity to overturn a nearly $ 315 million judgment against Sudan, resulting from the bombing of the USS Cole.
The question that judges are asked to answer is where a notice of the prosecution against Sudan should have been mailed to his embassy in Washington or his foreign ministry in Khartoum, the capital of the country. It was not clear how the judges would decide.
The US government weighed in on Sudan and the victims of the Cole bombing in October 2000, in which 17 US sailors were killed and dozens wounded.
In the case examined by the judges, a group of wounded sailors and several of their spouses pursued Sudan in US court, claiming that Sudan had provided support to Al-Qaida, who had claimed responsibility for the attack. in Yemen. Two injured sailors in the attack and relatives of dead sailors attended the high court proceedings on Wednesday.
In order to alert Sudan on the prosecution, the group sent the required notice to the Sudanese Embassy in Washington, just over one kilometer from the White House.
But Sudan has never responded and a court handed down a judgment of about 315 million dollars against the country. Sudan wants this judgment overturned, arguing that the prosecution notice should have been sent abroad. The Trump administration agrees.
The case did not seem to be a case that would divide the court along typical ideological lines. Chief Justice John Roberts, Judge Samuel Alito and Judge Elena Kagan all seemed to approve the sending of a notice of prosecution to the Embassy. Roberts said his "first thought" when he wanted to send a letter to a foreign official would be: "Why do not I hand it to the embassy?" Kagan, for his part, told lawyer Christopher Curran, who pleaded on behalf of Sudan, that "everyone understands that embassies are supposed to be the point of contact if you want to do something with a foreign government. ".
But Erica Ross, arguing on behalf of the Trump government, told the judges that the United States did not accept the notice of prosecution in front of their embassies abroad and that the United States had an interest in seeing foreign countries " brought before our courts only under the same circumstances that we are asking from abroad ".
Judges Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh all seemed inclined to side with the United States and Sudan. Sotomayor said that it seemed natural to inform a foreign minister of the prosecution "where you are likely to find them", and not to an embassy where they are not regularly present.
US law does not specify what is the correct answer. A Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 1976, provides for the proper notification to another country of a lawsuit in a US court. In the absence of other agreements between countries, the law stipulates that the notification must be "addressed and sent … to the head of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the foreign state concerned".
Sudanese and US government lawyers have stated that the best reading of the law is that it requires the notification to be sent to the Foreign Minister in the foreign country. They also point out that an international treaty called the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, signed by the United States, has been interpreted as prohibiting the notification of a trial to be posted at an embassy.
Kannon Shanmugam, who pleaded for the victims of the USS Cole, said that a decision in Sudan would force his clients to sue.
After the debate, Rick Harrison, who was injured in the attack, said the case was dragging on and it would be "ridiculous" to start all over again.
David Morales, who was also aboard the Cole when he was attacked, attended the proceedings recalling the bombing, a small piece of the ship's hull that he said carried "wherever I go".
