Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
678, 683 (N.D.Ga.1993) (for purposes of motion under Fed.R.Civ.P. 56, court may consider document that is authenticated by and attached to affidavit, and affiant must be person through whom the exhibits could be admitted into evidence), aff'd, 42 F.3d 645 (11th Cir.1994). Kuchersky also declares, under penalty of perjury, that he has attached “true and correct copies of’ business and governmental records relating to Navoi. Translations of the Kuchersky declarations and other attached documents were provided by Alexander Ahmedov, Counsel at the Embassy of the Republic of Uzbekistan. The exhibits and declarations submitted by Navoi are properly before the court and establish Navoi’s prima facie case. Cf. Kelly v. Syria Shell Petroleum Development B.V., 213 F.3d 841, 847-49 (5th Cir.) , cert. denied, 531 U.S. 979, 121 S.Ct. 426,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that affidavits and exhibits submitted by defendant made prima facie showing that entity was organ of foreign state
B. holding that a plaintiffs prima facie showing of jurisdictional facts is reviewed de novo
C. holding that plaintiffs conclusory allegations were insufficient to make out prima facie case for mere department status of foreign corporation defendant
D. holding that the burden of establishing prima facie case of discriminatory treatment may be satisfied by minimal showing
E. holding that a prima facie case is subject to independent review
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.