that courts should approach cases brought under the proposed legislation with this assumption .... More specifically, ... [the exhaustion requirement] should be informed by general principles of international law. The procedural practice of international human rights tribunals generally holds that the respondent has the burden of raising the nonexhaustion of remedies as an affirmative defense and must show that domestic remedies exist that the claimant did not use. Once the defendant makes a showing of remed 7 n. 6 (S.D.N.Y.1996) (noting that the legislative history of the TVPA indicates that the exhaustion requirement “was not intended to create a prohibitively stringent condition precedent to recovery under the statute”); Xuncax v. Gramajo, 886 F.Supp. 162, 178 (D.Mass. 1995) (<HOLDING>) (quoting S.Rep. No. 102-249 (1991)). In
recognizing that exhaustion of state administrative remedies is not required as a prerequisite to bringing an action pursuant to  1983 recognizing that issue exhaustion requirement and requirement exhaustion of remedies are different holding that an exhaustion of appellate remedies is required to make a trial courts ruling the law of the case holding exhaustion requirement inapplicable when requiring exhaustion would be futile holding that when foreign remedies are unobtainable ineffective inadequate or obviously futile exhaustion pursuant to tvpa is not required