* [Reproduced from the Slip Opinion provided by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. [A note on the pertinent part of the Foreign Assistance and Related Programs Appropriations Act appears at 24 I.L.M. 1508 (1985). The Court of Appeals judgment vacated by the Supreme Court appears at 23 I.L.M. 1274 (1984).]

1 The en banecourt's decision was rendered on October 5,1984.

2 The continued presence of U.S.constructed facilities may be relevant to mootness considerations but provides no grounds for injunctive relief. Plaintiffs never sought, nor could we issue, an injunction against the Honduran Government or its agents to remove Honduran military structures from Honduran land. SeeAppellants’ Reply Brief on Rehearing En Baneat 11.

3 Although plaintiffs now state their intention to add a claim for damages, we believe the orderly administration of justice requires, under all the circumstances of this case, that any such claim be brought to the appropriate court of first instance in a new complaint.

4 Attenuation of a controversy also provides grounds for denying declaratory relief. See Hess, supra,745 F.2d at 701; cf. Ramirez, supra,745 F.2d at 1532 (declaratory relief may be justified given strong showing of equities favoring equitable relief).