With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". non conveniens grounds despite claims by plaintiff-appellant that forum was inadequate because of “general corruption in the body politic” and state ownership of assets involved in the litigation). “[W]e have repeatedly emphasized that it is not the business of our courts to assume the responsibility for supervising the integrity of the judicial system of another sovereign nation.” Blanco v. Banco Indus, de Venezuela, S.A., 997 F.2d 974, 982 (2d Cir.1993) (affirming dismissal based on forum non conveniens despite contentions by intervenor of “systemic corruption, delay and expense in the Venezuelan justice system, as well as political instability in that country”). But cf. Rasoulzadeh v. Associated Press, 574 F.Supp. 854, 861 (S.D.N.Y.1983), aff'd 767 F.2d 908 (2d Cir.1985) (mem.) (<HOLDING>). Furthermore, this Court will not presume

A: holding that florida courts should always consider this third step of the forum non conveniens inquiry even if the private factors weigh more heavily in favor of the alternative forum and should require that the balance of public interests also be tipped in favor of the alternative forum in order to defeat the presumption favoring the plaintiffs forum choice
B: holding inadequate alternative forum because the court believed that plaintiffs would not obtain justice at the hands of the courts administered by iranian mullahs and would probably be shot if they returned to iran
C: holding an alternative remedy to be inadequate where it would have caused great delay in the vindication of the petitioners rights
D: holding that extreme delay in the alternative forum can render that forum inadequate
B.