That certainly is a criticism, and that's something that was subsequently rectified in the subsequent agreement that was drafted. It is a question of what we call the monitoring issue, of how were we to monitor. In this agreement, we believed the monitoring by the Red Cross was going to be sufficient. Other countries chose to put a monitoring provision in.
I know that at least in the case of the United Kingdom, they're having similar discussions in their Parliament today about how successful their agreement was in working, as well.
This takes me back to my point: agreements are all very well, but it's the way in which they're applied that makes them successful or not in the end.