On that point, I separate two things. One is that if you want to go after individuals by attacking their assets, that's where I think you have a lot of existing tools to go after them, in a way. On the other hand, it's perfectly appropriate to use sanctions. That's one of the main purposes, just to stigmatize and call out leaders and officials of governments. That's one of the main purposes of sanctions. I think that's a perfectly legitimate criterion, if Canada wants to follow that route, although it's much more effective when you're doing it as part of a multilateral organization or the UN when you're trying to stigmatize.
The problem is, of course, the tools for gross violations of human rights are in almost all cases going to constitute criminal offences. You're going to have the ability to prosecute for gross human rights violations, but that is our challenge today for the violations we see of international humanitarian law or the gross violations we see in Syria, for example. The solution to those is really prosecution and justice remedies, not sanctions. Sanctions may help to a degree.
However, maybe sanctions are the only opportunity we have in that context, especially when the international community isn't employing them at the moment. I do think there's still scope for using sanctions. I work at the International Criminal Court now. There are so many limitations to what we can do on the justice side. I think having the power to do it is still probably a good thing, but it's then choosing the situations when you're going to use it, and using it sparingly.