Tort -Former Libyan Army official defeats torture claims

Where there were no facts showing a Libyan National Army leader used his position to authorize the torture of plaintiffs, he was granted summary judgment.

Background

Plaintiffs are citizens and residents of Libya who have asserted claims pursuant to the Torture Victim Protection Act, or TVPA, against Khalifa Hifter. They allege that Hifter used his leadership role within the Libyan National Army, or LNA, to authorize the torture of plaintiffs and the indiscriminate killings of their family members in the fall of 2014. Hifter has filed a motion for summary judgment.

Briefing

In his reply brief, Hifter argued for the first time that there was no evidence in the record showing that plaintiffs were subjected to torture within the meaning of the TVPA. Although a claim under § 2(a)(1) cannot proceed without evidence of torture, plaintiffs did not seek leave to file a surreply to respond to Hifter’s contention.

On Jan. 9, 2026, the court held oral argument, but plaintiffs’ counsel did not appear. The court then ordered plaintiffs to “show cause by Friday, January 16, 2026 that there is sufficient evidence in this civil action to create a material dispute as to whether any remaining plaintiff was actually the victim of torture and as to whether that torture can be attributed to defendant Hifter.” On Jan. 16, 2026, plaintiffs filed a three-page response, which contained a two-paragraph argument section baldly asserting that Hifter’s forces subjected plaintiffs to torture. Attached to plaintiffs’ response were 370 pages of exhibits.

As a threshold matter, plaintiffs’ three-page response to the court’s Jan. 12, 2026 order, was insufficient. First, plaintiffs did not provide the court with specific citations to the relevant information contained in each exhibit. Instead, plaintiffs merely provided citations such as “Exhibits 2, 6, 9, 11, 12, 16, 23-29,” which is remarkably deficient given that those exhibits spanned across 187 pages.

Moreover, as Hifter correctly points out, plaintiffs’ response cited evidence related to only one plaintiff, Abdalla, and did not identify which evidence supported the claims that Ahmad, Mahmud and Ibrahim were tortured. Absent references to specific evidence in the record and proper analysis linking that evidence to each individual plaintiff remaining in this action, the court was left only to speculate as to plaintiffs’ torture claims and how plaintiffs would have used the evidence to support their claims that they were subjected to torture by Hifter’s forces. Additionally, several of plaintiffs’ exhibits are inadmissible.

Merits

 The TVPA contains a “rigorous” definition of torture. Based on the evidence before the court, although it is clear that plaintiffs were subjected to the horrors of armed conflict and suffered injuries as a result of that conflict, no reasonable jury could find that plaintiffs were subjected to torture.

As an initial matter, the only allegations in the complaint that describe conduct that would constitute torture are the allegations that Ibrahim was stripped, bound, beaten and “forced to stand in water and be painfully electrocuted, for five minutes at a time, for approximately seven and a half hours.” Those allegations, if proven, would demonstrate that Ibrahim was tortured.

However, there is no evidence in the record that corroborates those claims. Rather, Ibrahim’s deposition has not been included in the summary judgment record, and the only evidence in the record relating to Ibrahim’s injuries is a medical report from April 2015 which documents that he lost his eye due to a gunshot; however, it is unclear when, and under what conditions, that injury occurred, and that injury alone would not qualify as evidence of torture.

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment granted.

Al-Suyid v. Hifter, Case No. 1:20-cv-170, April 9, 2026. EDVA at Alexandria (Brinkema). VLW 026-3-172. 14 pp.

Full-Text Opinion

VLW 026-3-172
Virginia Lawyers Weekly