the word "torture” to include both torture and "extra judicial killing,” except where the context makes clear the more limited meaning is intended. 12 . Plaintiffs argue that these statutes also raise a related but distinct U.S. policy interest in insuring that claims arising out of human rights abuses are adjudicated according to the standards of international law. In arguing for this principle, they assume that the law of nations necessarily provides the substantive standards for evaluating claims brought under the ATCA in situations where the underlying claims involve human rights abuses. While they may well be right that such a principle is implicit in the ATCA, the federal courts have never definitively resolved this choice-of-law question. Compare Xuncax, 886 F.Supp. at 180-83 (<HOLDING>) with Tel-Oren, 726 F.2d at 777, 781-82
holding that atca establishes cause of action for violations of international law but requiring the district court to perform a traditional choiceoflaw analysis to determine whether international law law of forum state or law of state where events occurred should provide substantive law in such an action holding that federal courts must apply state substantive law in diversity cases holding that international law provides substantive law for atca cases holding that michigan law provides no substantive right to parole holding that in diversity cases federal courts are to apply state substantive law and federal procedural law