Filartiga continued

When the federal appellate court heard the Filartiga case they were not looking at the illegality of the underlying action of Pena-Irala. Instead they were dealing with the question of damages. Originally the court ordered $200,000.00 in damages for Dr. Filartiga and $175,000.00 in damages for Dolly Filartiga. The federal appellate court had earlier determined that "deliberate torture perpetrated under color of official authority violates universally accepted norms of the international law of human rights, regardless of the nationality of the parties,” and that 28 U.S.C. § 1350 gave jurisdiction over an action asserting such a tort committed in violation of the law of nations. 630 F.2d 876 (2d. Cir. 1980).

The court held that the State Action Doctrine did not apply because the Paraguayan government did not ratify the actions of Pena-Irala and therefore the State Action Doctrine would not apply. The court then determined what law should be applied, whether it was in the violation of the law of nations or of the sovereign state in which the action occurred. The court determined that the international application of a tort would be applied in order to avoid states making state actors immune from prosecution. The court further held, "where the nations of the world have adopted a norm in terms so formal and unambiguous as to make it international “law,” the interests of the global community transcend those of any one state. That does not mean that traditional choice-of-law principles are irrelevant. Clearly the court should consider the interests of Paraguay to the extent they do not inhibit the appropriate enforcement of the applicable international law or conflict with the public policy of the United States. 577 F.Supp. 860, 863-864.

The court further held that punitive damages were not allowed in Paraguayan courts, but the court held that there is precedent for holding punitive damages in international law. The court did recognize that punitive damages are not applied against governments but can be applied against individuals. In this particular case it is "essential and roper to grant the remedy of punitive damages in order to give effect to the manifest objectives of the international prohibition against torture." Id. at 865.