Yes, sir, I could.
The Amnesty case, in fact, reinforced that it is Afghanistan that's responsible. The case dealt with non-Canadians. They're responsible for the acts that take place in their country. The fact that it's characterized as a non-international armed conflict, in fact, reinforces that. It's the sovereignty of Afghanistan that governs, and they're responsible for the enforcement of their laws.
There is one point you mentioned, sir, that I would like to clarify. That is the question of whether the obligations under international and humanitarian law apply to all the actors on the battlefield. One of the unique characteristics, perhaps, of that law is that it applies to both sides, whether you're a state or non-state actor.
As you highlighted, one of the challenges in contemporary conflict is the “abiding by” issue. That is a challenge. The ICRC is doing tremendous work in terms of addressing that by trying to get better abiding by other state actors, as are other NGOs.
For the Canadian Forces, that's irrelevant. As I mentioned in my comments, we are, obviously, committed to the rule of law and Canadian values. We will apply the law regardless of whether our opponents do. This is a significant part for us in terms of maintaining discipline. It's a slippery slope in terms of not complying with the law.