Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
of the Convention without any reservation, understandings or alterations specifically pertaining to its scope, we would find it difficult to interpret the statute as narrowly as the defendants suggest: Such a construction would likely create a conflict with our international treaty obligations, with which we presume Congress meant to comply fully. See Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law, § 115, cmt. a (1987) ("It is generally assumed that Congress does not intend to repudiate an international obligation of the United States by nullifying a rule of international law or an international agreement as domestic law, or by making it impossible for the United States to carry out its obligations.”); Boureslan v. Aramco, 857 F.2d 1014, 1023 (5th Cir.1988) (King, J. dissenting) . We recognize that there may be some variation
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing a presumption of reasonableness
B. recognizing presumption
C. recognizing the presumption that congress does not intend to violate international law
D. recognizing added presumption
E. recognizing this presumption
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.