I appreciate that entirely.
As I understand international law—and perhaps I could ask Ms. Swords to comment—when we deal with the question of whether we transfer people to another country, if we have substantial grounds—I think that's the legal phrase under the convention of torture—to believe there's a risk of torture, we're not allowed to transfer people to another country. Wouldn't the same principle apply with respect to whether there are substantial grounds, a risk, with respect to torture? If you find an instrument of torture in the office of the director of investigations of the National Directorate of Security, what is that? Doesn't that say...? And how long has this guy been there?