I know that Ms. Bulger mentioned the changes around the term “impunity”--is that right?--in relation to sexual violence in DRC. With that example, as part of the international community that is engaged in security reform, if the training.... Let's imagine that Canada was offering this training or was part of a group of countries offering this training to police and other members of the security sector in Congo. If that training didn't use the term “impunity”, then in fact there would likely be no discussion of impunity. I mean, if you're not using the term, I don't know what else you would say.
That would mean that when Justine walked into the police station, in the example I gave you, there might have been a different result. She's not tall and she's shouting at a big guy with a gun in a setting where there are armed forces. There's regular violence occurring. She's saying to him that he knows he can't do this, that there cannot be impunity for sexual violence, and that it means he must prosecute people for this crime. If that term and the norm and values embodied in the behaviour embodied in that term aren't there, then it would be perfectly reasonable for him to say that it depends, that there are conditions, that sometimes it's okay. It would be the opposite of impunity to say, “In some cases, we let people go, because you have to understand the context”. That's the difference I can see it making.