1050 774 FEDERAL REPORTER, 3d SERIES and religious activities made him an especially likely target. [2] Recall that maltreatment is actionable under the FSIA only if purposeful and particularly harsh and that killings are prohibited only if they occur outside the limits of the normal legal process. The Kims’ experts make a compelling case that North Korea violated both provisions. Professor David Hawk, an expert on human rights in North Korea who has interviewed dozens of former kwan-li-so prisoners, reports that such prisoners regularly endure harsh treatment, including starvation, brutal beatings, rape, and forced abortion. Decl. of Professor David Hawk ¶¶ 14–19. Although acknowledging that he lacks ‘‘firsthand knowledge about Reverend Kim’s case specifically,’’ Professor Hawk believes it ‘‘likely that [Reverend Kim] would have been TTT transferred to a kwan-li-so ’’ and that, once there, the Reverend—a ‘‘valuable target of the DPRK’’—would have suffered ‘‘additional brutality’’ even beyond that typical of Korean labor camps. Id. ¶ 20. That treatment, he reports, would probably mean twelve hours of physical labor per day, seven days a week, and ‘‘longterm solitary confinement in punishment cells which do not have enough space for a person to completely lie down or stand up, causing inmates to experience a loss of circulation and atrophy of legs, and often leading to death within several weeks.’’ Id. ¶ 15. Ernest Downs, a former senior Defense Department official and member of the board of the U.S. Committee for Human Rights in North Korea, testifies with even more certainty: of the one thousand former prisoners with whose testimony he is familiar, he ‘‘do[es] not know of any case in which the former prisoner was not subjected to torture while in the prison camp.’’ Supplemental Decl. of Ernest C. Downs ¶ 10. That treatment includes ‘‘kneeling motionless’’ for hours on end, ‘‘water torture,’’ ‘‘ ‘pigeon torture’ with TTT arms pinned behind [the] back and attached to cell bars in ways that made it impossible either to stand up or sit down,’’ and other typical torture that is, regrettably, too commonplace to require detailed description here. Id., Ex. 1, at 149. [3, 4] Of course, suffering alone is insufficient to establish a claim under the FSIA’s terrorism exception. To qualify as torture, the mistreatment must be purposeful—that is, the defendant must have targeted the victim, for instance, to punish him for his religious or political beliefs. Along these lines, Professor Hawk testifies that North Korea’s policy is to imprison ‘‘political prisoners and others deemed to be opponents of the DPRK regime’’ to ‘‘deter dissent in the larger population.’’ Hawk Decl. ¶¶ 9–10. According to Professor Hawk, moreover, North Korea targeted Reverend Kim not only because of his ‘‘humanitarian activities,’’ but also because he was a Christian missionary who proselytized to defectors. Id. ¶ 21. For his part, Downs is ‘‘virtually certain’’ that Reverend Kim, ‘‘a foreigner abducted by the DPRK for political purposes,’’ would have been singled out for ‘‘exceptionally painful, brutal, and outrageous treatment’’ and is probably dead ‘‘as a result of his torture and malnutrition.’’ Decl. of Ernest C. Downs ¶ 34; Downs Suppl. Decl. ¶¶ 6(i), 7, 8. This expert testimony is more than sufficient to ‘‘satisf[y]’’ us that North Korea purposefully tortured Reverend Kim. With respect to extrajudicial killing, the Kims need demonstrate only that the DPRK killed the Reverend without due process. Professor Hawk ‘‘believe[s] that’’ the Reverend suffered an ‘‘untimely death’’ due to starvation. Hawk Decl. ¶ 20. Going even further, Downs believes that the Reverend’s ‘‘death resulted from torture and malnutrition’’ and was ‘‘deliberately