Hekmati v. Islamic Republic of Iran
278 F. Supp. 3d 145
| D.D.C. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Amir Hekmati, a U.S. citizen and former Marine, traveled to Iran in August 2011 to visit relatives and was arrested at Tehran airport and taken to Evin Prison.
- He was held about 4.5 years in various wards (Ward 209—MOIS control—solitary; Ward 350; general population) and subject to severe conditions: prolonged solitary confinement, beatings, stress positions, flogging of feet, taser strikes, forced sedatives, deprivation of basic hygiene/food, and repeated coercive interrogations culminating in a televised false confession and an initial death sentence.
- Iran repeatedly threatened death and conditioned his release on political concessions by the U.S.; Hekmati was ultimately released in January 2016 as part of a prisoner exchange.
- Hekmati filed suit under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) §1605A alleging torture and hostage-taking; Iran did not appear, Clerk entered default, and Hekmati moved for default judgment. Service was effected through diplomatic channels under 28 U.S.C. §1608(a)(4).
- The court found jurisdiction under FSIA §1605A (Iran designated state sponsor of terrorism; Hekmati a U.S. national; arbitration offer served), held Iran liable for torture and hostage-taking, and awarded compensatory and punitive damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject-matter jurisdiction under FSIA §1605A | Hekmati: Iran is a designated state sponsor; he is a U.S. national; claim alleges torture/hostage-taking; offer to arbitrate was served | Iran: no appearance (default) — no opposing jurisdictional argument presented | Court: jurisdiction satisfied (designation, nationality, arbitration offer, claims for torture/hostage-taking met) |
| Whether plaintiff’s treatment qualifies as "torture" under TVPA/FSIA | Hekmati: sustained physical and mental abuse, purposive coercion to elicit confession, forced sedatives, threats of death sufficed | Iran: no response; court evaluated evidence against TVPA/Price standard | Court: conduct was deliberate, severe, purposive — constitutes torture under §1605A/TVPA |
| Whether detention constituted "hostage taking" under the Convention/FSIA | Hekmati: detention and threats intended to compel U.S. government concessions; release occurred in a prisoner exchange | Iran: no response | Court: detention aimed at third‑party compulsion — constitutes hostage taking under §1605A |
| Damages (amount and types) | Hekmati: seeks pre‑ and post‑release pain & suffering, economic and punitive damages (proposed formulas per‑diem and multipliers) | Iran: no response | Court: awarded $26,020,000 (pain & suffering: $16,020,000 pre‑release; $10,000,000 post‑release), $5,728,179 economic damages, and punitive damages equal to total compensatory ($31,748,179) |
Key Cases Cited
- Mwani v. bin Laden, 417 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (default judgment standards; court must confirm jurisdiction before entering default judgment)
- Price v. Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, 294 F.3d 82 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (interpretation of "torture" under TVPA/FSIA: severity and purposive intent requirements)
- Simpson v. Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, 326 F.3d 230 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (FSIA hostage‑taking analysis; "third‑party compulsion" element)
- Moradi v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 77 F. Supp. 3d 57 (D.D.C. 2015) (torture findings and damages methodology in similar Iranian‑detention context)
- Stansell v. Republic of Cuba, 217 F. Supp. 3d 320 (D.D.C. 2016) (damages principles for prolonged captivity and compensation approaches)