According to the order by the federal justice division in Washington, Iran will have to pay $104.7 million as a compensation to the victims of truck blasting occurred in 1996  in Dhahran of Saudi Arabia in which 19 personnel of US military force had died through the source of evidence is completely undetected.

The judgemental decision against Iran and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps by the Chief Judge Beryl Howell has not faced any kind of defensive claims refusing the allegation of connectivity with the attack.

Howell said, during the blasting 15 service members were brutally killed in Khobar Tower Complex which cannot be simplified due to the distressful memory.

According to the judge, 24 relatives will be consolidated from their mental distress through this order as they lost their loved ones in that terrible blasting.

The lawyer of plaintiffs Paul Gaston commented, “ The plaintiffs are very pleased with the decision, and look forward to pursuing collections. Having the court ruling gives them some measure of justice.”

13 members of Hezbollah were severely accused of the charge with a terrible crime in the federal court of Alexandria and Virginia by detecting their connectivity with the bomb attack.

Through a default judgement, in 2006 at Washington another federal judge ordered Iran to pay $254.4 million to the relatives and 17 Americans who lost their lives in the blasting.

In 2015, the US government established US Victims of State-Sponsored Terrorism Fund for providing the reimbursement to the victims.

Related Articles
Next Story
Going Viral
16 States Indicts the US President Due to Emergency Declaration on  Border Wall Issue

16 States Indicts the US President Due to Emergency Declaration on Border Wall Issue

by Haimantee Ghosh February 19, 2019
Sixteen United States indicted the US President Donald Trump’s administration over his decision to announce a national emergency to sponsor a wall on the Southern border with Mexico, claiming the move breached the constitution. The litigation, filed in a federal court in California, explained the order by the US President was contradictory to the Presentment Clause which figures out the legal proceedings and the Appropriations Clause, which defines Congress as...