Yes, absolutely. It's critical for our model that we can demonstrate results and good use of money. The way we do it is by implementing what we call “performance-based funding”. That means every recipient enters into a contract with the Global Fund. The contract includes the indicators of what they are going to achieve; the indicators are then externally verified by auditors as to whether they achieve or not, and that determines the funding.
You asked if we have had negative experiences. Yes, absolutely, and I can talk about that freely because it's transparent. I'm not mentioning any country that would be secret.
We had a couple of countries in which there was evidence of corruption. We then have different ways to respond. We can stop the funding temporarily, or we can stop the funding for a period of time and ask that the countries completely restructure the way they operate. We have done that in countries such as the Ukraine, which was the first, as well as in Uganda, Mauritania, and recently the Philippines. It's important to note that it's not against the country, of course, but usually against corrupt officials who misuse the money. We demand, then, that they be replaced, that there be consequences, and if we see that they restructure the programs, we're happy to take up the funding again.
It's transparent on our website. We have an inspector general who visits the countries with his auditors, and all these reports are on the website. They are also meant as something of a deterrent for other countries. They know we are watching what is happening.