law violations that may be asserted under the ATS must be sufficiently definite in their content and acceptance among civilized nations that they reflect “historical paradigms” that were familiar at the time that the ATS was enacted. Id. at 732, 124 S.Ct. 2739. Paradigmatic violations of the law of nations that were “probably on [the] minds” of the drafters of the ATS include “violation of safe conducts, infringement of the rights of ambassadors, and piracy.” Id. at 715, 124 S.Ct. 2739; see also id. at 720, 124 S.Ct. 2739. The Supreme Court also has suggested that the prohibition against torture exemplifies a norm that is “specific, universal, and obligatory.” Kiobel, 133 S.Ct. at 1665 (citation omitted); see also Filartiga v. Pena-Irala, 630 F.2d 876, 884-87 (2d Cir.1980) (<HOLDING>). Indeed, in the present case, the district
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 holding that forced labor violates the law of nations holding that because the prohibition on official torture is clear and unambiguous it can serve as a basis for suit under the ats recognizing that claims for extrajudicial killings are actionable international law violations under the ats holding that article 3 of the united nations convention on the rights of the child has attained the status of customary international law and is therefore incorporated in federal law