WARMBIER v. DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF KOREA Cite as 356 F.Supp.3d 30 (D.D.C. 2018) ‘‘cessation of breathing.’’ Kanter Decl. ¶¶ 1, 14, 15. ‘‘[N]ormal North Korean torture methods,’’ which include ‘‘[w]ater-boarding,’’ ‘‘manipulating teeth with pliers,’’ and ‘‘application of electric shock,’’ ‘‘can lead to a cessation of breathing,’’ and if Otto began ‘‘to resist,’’ ‘‘interrogators would have become infuriated TTT and suffocated him or otherwise caused him to stop breathing, only to be forced to revive him.’’ Collins Expert Decl. ¶ 31. Even more, Otto ‘‘had a large scar on his foot and TTT certain of his bottom teeth appeared repositioned,’’ further evidence supporting that his physical condition resulted from ‘‘[t]he application of electric shocks’’ to Otto’s foot and the use of pliers to rearrange Otto’s teeth. Id. ¶ 30. Although ‘‘there were not any apparent visible wounds on Otto [in the video footage available of him while in North Korean detention],’’ ‘‘bruises, wounds or other injury on the body anywhere other than his hands, head and neck would not have been visible’’ from the ‘‘methods of torture commonly applied to North Korean detainees in order to extract [a] confession.’’ Collins Expert Decl. ¶ 28. For instance, ‘‘waterboarding, being forced to squat for several hours, and being placed in a box too small to either stand or lie down in for long periods of time,’’ all ‘‘cause severe pain and suffering without leaving obvious physical evidence.’’ Id.; see also H’rg Tr. (Rough) at 92–93 (Expert David Hawk) (explaining ‘‘common methods of torture and pain infliction during the initial detention and interrogation periods,’’ such as ‘‘string[ing] prisoners up by their wrists from the bars in the cells just with their toes off the floor,’’ forced kneeling or squatting with an ‘‘iron ore wooden bar’’ behind the legs, putting people in a ‘‘very, very small box so that they can’t stand up or lie down,’’ and beatings, would not leave scars). Moreover, United States officials have 49 publicly confirmed that North Korea tortured Otto. Hatch Decl. ¶ 17. The plaintiffs, therefore, have ‘‘produced compelling, admissible evidence’’ that North Korea detained Otto and ‘‘routinely tortures’’ its detainees. Kim, 774 F.3d at 1049. b. Hostage Taking [19, 20] The plaintiffs have also satisfactorily shown that North Korea took Otto hostage. ‘‘[H]ostage taking’’ is defined under Section 1605A(h)(2) as having ‘‘the meaning given that term in Article 1 of the International Convention Against the Taking of Hostages,’’ which in turn provides: Any person who seizes or detains and threatens to kill, to injure or to continue to detain another person (hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘hostage’’) in order to compel a third party, namely, a State, an international intergovernmental organization, a natural or juridicial person, or a group of persons, to do or abstain from doing any act as an explicit or implicit condition for the release of the hostage commits the offence of taking of hostages (‘‘hostage-taking’’) within the meaning of this Convention. United Nations, International Convention Against the Taking of Hostages, No. 21931, Article I (Dec. 17, 1979). ‘‘Courts thus have found ‘hostage taking’ in cases involving physical capture and confinement.’’ Mohammadi, 782 F.3d at 16. ‘‘The essential element of the hostage-taking claim is that the intended purpose of the detention be to accomplish the sort of third-party compulsion described in the [C]onvention.’’ Simpson v. Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (‘‘Simpson II’’ ), 470 F.3d 356, 359 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (quoting Simpson, 326 F.3d at 234–35). This requires ‘‘some ‘quid pro quo’ arrangement whereby the hostage would have been released ‘upon performance or non-performance of any action by that