does not permit litigation of the subject matter of the dispute,” the other forum may not be an adequate alternative. Id. Also, “[a]n alternative forum is inadequate if the plaintiff will be ‘treated unfairly’ there.” MBI Grp., 616 F.3d at 571 (quoting Piper Aircraft, 454 U.S. at 255, 102 S.Ct. 252). A court will not force plaintiffs to litigate in a forum where they would face a particularized and “serious risk to their safety.” Doe v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 393 F.Supp.2d 20, 29 (D.D.C.2005)(rejecting a motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens in a case concerning the Indonesia military where plaintiffs showed that they faced “a genuine risk of reprisals” if they litigated in Indonesia); see also HSBC USA, Inc. v. Prosegur Paraguay, SA, 2004 WL 2210283, at *3-4 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2004) (<HOLDING>); Cabin v. Assasie — Gyimah, 921 F.Supp. 1189
holding that investigating allegations of wrongdoing and mismanagement was a proper purpose under section 18305 holding mexico to be available and adequate forum after rejecting arguments that forum was inadequate due to restrictions on discovery and damages holding that extreme delay in the alternative forum can render that forum inadequate holding that florida courts should always consider this third step of the forum non conveniens inquiry even if the private factors weigh more heavily in favor of the alternative forum and should require that the balance of public interests also be tipped in favor of the alternative forum in order to defeat the presumption favoring the plaintiffs forum choice holding that paraguay was an inadequate alternative forum because the paraguayan government was implicated in the alleged wrongdoing and individuals investigating the case had been murdered