Now with respect to agreements, as you said, the agreement that was signed in 2005 was based on international humanitarian law and so on.
There were concerns expressed that may or may not have been legitimate, but they piqued people's attention, so that in 2007 the government decided to take what I would suggest was the prudent step of looking at the agreement and making it tighter, having it cover more things, which was not necessarily in response to any specific conviction or proof—because there never was any—but it was simply a prudent thing to do based on legitimate concerns. But it was basically more pre-emptive than anything else, to say, “Look, there may be things going on here that we would not be comfortable with”--or there may have been allegations, and allegations are cheap and easy--“but we should do something to tighten up the agreement.” And that's in fact what was done in 2007. Is that not true?