42 950 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT, 2d SERIES rigorous definition of that term adopted in the FSIA. DPRK’s failure to respond to the complaint or to respond to any of the congressional inquiries regarding Reverend Kim’s fate, in part, obscures the precise details of Reverend Kim’s treatment following his abduction by DPRK agents. Moreover, the widely feared nature of DPRK repression appears to force those individuals who may know details about Reverend Kim’s whereabouts and treatment to convey such information sparingly and anonymously. See, e.g., Do Hee–Youn Decl. ¶ 2 (describing ‘‘network of individuals that have supplied TTT information concerning North Korean matters’’ and explaining ‘‘many of these individuals are kept confidential to ensure their safety from potential retribution against them by the North Korean government’’). Unfortunately for plaintiffs, no D.C. Circuit opinion appears to allow such circumstances to lessen the plaintiffs’ exacting burden of proof. Here, the declarations of the plaintiffs and Butler reflect no actual knowledge of how Reverend Kim was treated in the DPRK. The South Korean court decision convicted a DPRK agent of abducting Reverend Kim, but does not refer to Reverend Kim being tortured. The congressional resolutions and correspondence sought, but did not provide, details about Reverend Kim’s treatment. The State Department reports discussing abuse in DPRK prisons and media speculation that Revered Kim died provide no first-hand accounts detailing his treatment. The reports from Human Rights Watch and the United Nations provide no first-hand accounts of Reverend Kim’s mistreatment and do not detail the frequency or duration of the acts of torture at the prison camps. The Kirkpatrick book excerpt recounts information docketed in this case but adds no first-hand information about Reverend Kim’s treatment, or any details about the nature or severity of his torture, or the frequency or duration of any acts of torture or the parts of his body at which they were aimed or any weapons used to carry them out. Two of plaintiffs’ declarants, Do Hee–Youn and Yoshikuni Yamamoto, recounted hearsay reports that Reverend Kim was tortured and died. The declarants did not, though, reveal the sources of the reports, specify their bases of knowledge, or provide useful details about the nature and severity of any torture. The experts in this case describe conditions at an established and extensive system of penal colonies where the DPRK regularly holds abductees and political prisoners, and opine that reports from defectors stating that Reverend Kim was tortured and is either still in custody or has died as a result of his treatment are credible. However, Hawk does not report that the prisoners he spoke with had personal knowledge of Reverend Kim’s treatment. Hawk also does not describe the nature or severity of the torture Revered Kim suffered, or the frequency or duration of acts of torture upon him or the parts of the body at which they were aimed or any weapons used to carry them out. Likewise, Downs does not identify the sources he deems credible upon whom he based his opinion that Reverend Kim probably died as a result of deliberate torture and malnutrition. He does not reveal their bases of knowledge about Reverend Kim or say whether he has spoken with them. Nor does Downs provide details regarding the severity of Reverend Kim’s beatings. Price constrains us from employing discussion about the abuses generally in these camps to show that mistreatment of Reverend Kim occurred that rose to the level of torture under the TVPA. As the plaintiffs have not satisfied the requirements of the FSIA, subject matter jurisdiction is lacking.