whether “special factors counseling hesitation in the absence of affirmative action by Congress” exist, Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 396, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971); see Sosa, 124 S.Ct. at 2763. Here, the key question is should this Court infer the existence of a private right of action from the alleged violations of international law. An implied private action lies under the ATS “only for violations of treaties or customary international law.” Flores, 414 F.3d at 253; see Sosa, 124 S.Ct. at 2761-62. Thus, because Pfizer is not alleged to have violated any treaty, to state a claim under the ATS, Plaintiffs must demonstrate violation of a “clear and unambiguous” rule of customary international law. Filartiga, 630 F.2d at 884 (<HOLDING>). This Court has already discussed in Abdullahi
holding that a suit against a state official in his or her official capacity is not a suit against the official but rather is a suit against the officials office holding that because the prohibition on official torture is clear and unambiguous it can serve as a basis for suit under the ats holding that a suit against a state official in his or her official capacity is a suit against the state itself and not cognizable under  1983 holding that an official capacity suit should be treated as a suit against the entity holding that official torture is now prohibited by the law of nations and that federal courts may exercise jurisdiction under the ats concerning such international violations