460 723 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT, 2d SERIES Accordingly, the conditions of section 1605A have been met, and the Court concludes that defendants are not immune from this action. Because defendants are not immune from this action and service of process has been effected, this Court possesses both subject-matter and personal jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1330(a) (Providing that the ‘‘district courts shall have original jurisdiction without regard to amount in controversy of any nonjury civil action against a foreign state TTT with respect to which the foreign state is not entitled to immunity TTT under sections 1605–1607 of this title’’); Texas Trading & Milling Corp. v. Federal Republic of Nigeria, 647 F.2d 300, 308 (2d Cir.1981) (Under the FSIA ‘‘subject matter jurisdiction plus service of process equals personal jurisdiction.’’). Findings Regarding Liability Section 1605A(c) of the FSIA expressly creates a federal statutory cause of action for plaintiffs in an action brought under section 1605A. Because the elements of a claim under section 1605A(c) must also be established in order to waive the foreign state’s immunity and vest the court with subjectmatter jurisdiction under section 1605A, liability under section 1605A(c) will exist whenever the jurisdictional requirements of section 1605A are met. See Kilburn v. 25. The fact that liability arises once sponsorship of terrorist activities is demonstrated for jurisdictional purposes is not surprising because ‘‘[s]ponsorship of terrorist activities inherently involves a conspiracy to commit terrorist attacks. As a co-conspirator, both with its own agents, officials and employees, and with others, such as the terrorist organization and the ultimate perpetrators, the foreign state is also a joint tortfeasor.’’ Flatow, supra at 27. 26. Indeed, a plaintiff may establish his or her proof in FSIA default judgment proceedings via affidavit, and live testimony is not required. See e.g. Weinstein v. Islamic Republic Islamic Republic of Iran, 699 F.Supp.2d 136, 155 (D.D.C.2010) (‘‘[T]he § 1605A(c) cause of action is fulfilled by demonstrating that the foreign sovereign performed acts described in subsection (a)(1) of § 1605A, which addresses immunity and subject matter jurisdictionTTTT Although an analysis of a foreign sovereign’s potential immunity and liability should be conducted separately, the elements of immunity and liability under § 1605A(c) are essentially the same in that § 1605A(a)(1) must be fulfilled to demonstrate that a plaintiff has a cause of action.’’). See also Gates v. Syrian Arab Republic, 580 F.Supp.2d 53 (D.D.C.2008) (same).25 Accordingly, because, as discussed supra, defendants’ immunity is waived under section 1605A due to their provision of material support and resources to the JRA and the PFLP, defendants are liable to plaintiffs under section 1605A(c). Compensatory Damages In actions brought under section 1605A, plaintiffs are entitled to ‘‘economic damages, solatium, pain, and suffering, and punitive damages.’’ § 1605A(c). [4] On the matter of damages, the Court received live and affidavit 26 testimony from each of the plaintiffs. Also, plaintiffs presented expert medical testimony in the form of affidavits and reports from of of Iran, 175 F.Supp.2d 13, 17 (D.D.C.2001); Campuzano v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 281 F.Supp.2d 258, 268 (D.D.C.2003); Oveissi v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 498 F.Supp.2d 268, 272 (D.D.C.2007); Bennett v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 507 F.Supp.2d 117, 125 (D.D.C. 2007); Weinstein v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 184 F.Supp.2d 13, 19 (D.D.C.2002); Hutira v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 211 F.Supp.2d 115 (D.D.C.2002); Elahi v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 124 F.Supp.2d 97, 100 (D.D.C.2000); Int’l Road Fed’n v. Democratic Republic of the Congo, 131 F.Supp.2d 248, 252 (D.D.C.2001); Commercial Bank of Kuwait v. Rafidain Bank, 15 F.3d 238, 242 (2d Cir.1994).