WARMBIER v. DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF KOREA Cite as 356 F.Supp.3d 30 (D.D.C. 2018) exception, in light of detainee’s parents’ testimony that senior United States officials told them on several occasions that their son was being imprisoned in North Korea because North Korea wanted something from United States, that he would not be released until they had obtained that, and that any public criticism from them would result in punishment, and expert testimony that North Korea used hostage taking as tool of diplomacy, and detained, convicted, and sentenced student to gain leverage against United States. 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 1605A(a)(1), 1605A(h)(2). 20. International Law O10.33 Essential element of hostage-taking claim under Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act’s (FSIA) terrorism exception is that detention’s intended purpose be to accomplish sort of third-party compulsion described in International Convention Against the Taking of Hostages, whereby there is quid pro quo arrangement whereby hostage would be released upon performance or non-performance of any action by that third party. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1605A(h)(2). 21. International Law O10.33 American student’s death shortly after he was returned to United States after his lengthy detention in Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea) was ‘‘extrajudicial killing,’’ within meaning of Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act’s (FSIA) terrorism exception, despite North Korea’s claim that brain damage he suffered was result of botulism, in light of evidence that student sustained brain injury caused by sustained cessation of blood flow to his brain weeks before he was returned, that tests indicated that brain damages was not result of botulism, that North Korea routinely withheld medical care from those in its custody, and his 33 death was not authorized by independent judiciary. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1605A(a)(1). See publication Words and Phrases for other judicial constructions and definitions. 22. Federal Civil Procedure O2421 Upon obtaining default judgment, successful plaintiffs may recover damages by proving that projected consequences are reasonably certain—i.e., more likely than not—to occur, and must prove amount of damages by reasonable estimate. 23. Federal Civil Procedure O2421 In determining reasonable estimate of damages in awarding default judgment, courts may look to expert testimony and prior awards for comparable injury. 24. Damages O99, 186 Unlike damages for pain and suffering, lost earnings damages under Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) are not hard to quantify, and court will not excuse plaintiff’s failure to support claim for lost earnings with competent evidence. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1605A(c). 25. Damages O186 Plaintiff may prove lost earnings damages in action under Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) based on expert economist’s reasoned analysis. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1605A(c). 26. Assault and Battery O40 Death O95(2) Evidence O571(10) Lost earnings award of $6,038,308 was warranted in action against Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea) under Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act’s (FSIA) terrorism exception to recover damages for American student’s torture, hostage taking, and extrajudicial killing, based on economist’s expert testimony that such award was likely, in light of student’s