HAN KIM v. DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF KOREA Cite as 774 F.3d 1044 (D.C. Cir. 2014) caused by his North Korean captors.’’ Downs Suppl. Decl. ¶ 13. Given these uncontroverted expert statements, we have no trouble concluding that the Kims presented sufficient evidence to ‘‘satisf[y] the court’’ that the North Korean government killed Reverend Kim outside the formal legal process. Finally, an observation about our decision’s reach. Our conclusion would no doubt differ if we lacked confirmed evidence that the DPRK was involved in Reverend Kim’s disappearance. In that case, finding that the regime tortured and killed him would arguably require too many logical leaps. But that is not this case. Here, the Kims’ evidence that the regime abducted the Reverend, that it invariably tortures and kills prisoners like him, and that it uses terror and intimidation to prevent witnesses from testifying allows us to reach the logical conclusion that the re- 1051 gime tortured and killed the Reverend. In other words, the Kims’ evidence is ‘‘satisfactory to the court.’’ For all of these reasons, we reverse and remand with instructions to the district court to enter a default judgment on the Kims’ behalf. If the DPRK is unhappy with that outcome and has evidence that it has not tortured and killed Reverend Kim, it, like any defendant in default, may ask the district court to vacate that judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). So ordered. ,