In the 15 cases we reviewed of mistreatment and torture, we didn't see anything on the consular officer on the ground. We saw that they met as soon as they were alerted. When it came to their attention, they immediately took action. The variance that we saw was in getting the information necessary to make a judgment as to whether or not the claims were credible. That involved the consular officer to a degree.
It was a training issue in some cases, in terms of knowing what to look for and what to report back to the decision-makers on whether or not the case was credible. For those cases, that was our assessment of what we examined and why there was different treatment across the 15 cases.
In the cases of Canadians arrested and detained abroad, our biggest concern was having the assessment of the person's vulnerability in order to decide what services were needed. In such cases, the discretion and judgment of the consular officer are key, and you wouldn't want to lose that. What we didn't see was how that judgment was being exercised and documented in the file, so that it could be overseen as well—so that everyone at the consulate knew, and it wasn't just in the mind of this one consular officer.