On October 30, 2014, a U.K. Court of Appeal (the Court) ruled that a Libyan man can sue top U.K. officials for their complicity in his 2004 rendition from China to Libya, where he was allegedly imprisoned and tortured.  In its decision, the Court held that “state immunity does not bar these proceedings” and that the respondents “are not entitled to any immunity before the courts in this jurisdiction.” Although the Court found applicable the act of state doctrine, which is used to prevent courts from inquiring into matters where another state is involved, the Court held that “the present case falls within the established limitation on the act of state doctrine imposed by considerations of public policy on grounds of violations of human rights and international law and that there are compelling reasons requiring the exercise of jurisdiction.”  The Court went on to note that “[t]here is a compelling public interest in the investigation by the English courts of these very grave allegations. The risk of displeasing our allies or offending other states . . .  cannot justify our declining jurisdiction on grounds of act of state over what is a properly justiciable claim.”