Alejandre v. Republic of Cuba
1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22722, 996 F. Supp. 1239, 1997 WL 847062 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The state-sponsored terrorism exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) removes a foreign state's immunity from suit in U.S. courts for extrajudicial killings of U.S. nationals, provided the state is a designated state sponsor of terrorism and the act occurred outside its territory.
Facts:
- Armando Alejandre, Carlos Alberto Costa, and Mario Mañuel De la Peña were U.S. citizens and members of the humanitarian organization 'Brothers to the Rescue.'
- On February 24, 1996, the three men were flying in two unarmed, civilian Cessna 337 aircraft on a mission to search for Cuban rafters in the Florida Straits.
- The pilots filed flight plans and notified both Miami and Havana air traffic controllers of their route, which was in international airspace, north of Cuba's twelve-mile territorial sea.
- While the Cessnas were in international airspace, the Cuban Air Force launched MiG fighter jets under the control of a military ground station.
- Acting on direct orders from ground control, and without issuing any warnings, the Cuban MiG pilots fired air-to-air missiles at the two Cessna aircraft.
- The missiles struck the planes, causing them to disintegrate mid-air and killing Alejandre, Costa, and De la Peña instantly.
- The destruction of the aircraft was so complete that the victims' bodies were never recovered.
Procedural Posture:
- The personal representatives for the estates of Armando Alejandre, Carlos Alberto Costa, and Mario Mañuel De la Peña filed a lawsuit against the Republic of Cuba and the Cuban Air Force in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
- Defendants Cuba and the Cuban Air Force refused to appear in court, asserting via a diplomatic note that the court lacked jurisdiction over them.
- The court clerk entered a procedural default against both defendants for failing to answer the complaint.
- Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1608(e), which prohibits default judgments against foreign states without sufficient evidence, the district court held a non-jury trial to allow the plaintiffs to establish their claims for liability and damages.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the state-sponsored terrorism exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) permit a suit for monetary damages in a U.S. federal court against the Republic of Cuba and its Air Force for the extrajudicial killing of U.S. citizens in unarmed civilian aircraft over international waters?
Opinions:
Majority - James Lawrence King
Yes. The state-sponsored terrorism exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) permits a suit for damages against the Republic of Cuba and the Cuban Air Force. The court reasoned that Cuba's actions met all statutory requirements of the exception under 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(7). First, the unprovoked shootdown constituted an 'extrajudicial killing.' Second, the Cuban Air Force was acting as an agent of the Cuban state. Third, Cuba was designated by the United States as a state sponsor of terrorism at the time of the incident. Fourth, competent evidence, including an ICAO report and eyewitness testimony, established that the act occurred over international waters, outside Cuban territory. Finally, the victims and the claimants were U.S. nationals. Because all conditions were met, Cuba was stripped of sovereign immunity and found liable for compensatory damages, while the Cuban Air Force, as an agency or instrumentality, was also held liable for punitive damages.
Analysis:
This decision represents a landmark application of the 1996 Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), which amended the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act to create a specific exception for terrorism. It established a clear precedent for holding designated state sponsors of terrorism financially accountable in U.S. courts for violent acts committed against U.S. citizens abroad. The case solidifies the legal pathway for victims of state-sponsored terror to seek civil redress and affirms that punitive damages can be levied against an agency or instrumentality of a foreign state, serving as a powerful tool for punishment and deterrence that would be unavailable against the foreign state itself.
