First off, I'd like to know whether, when you reviewed the cases, it was an in-depth review or did you simply check to see whether there had been a miscarriage of justice. The commissioner was criticized for having changed the substance of some decisions and disregarded information within the files.
What does a comprehensive review mean to you? Did you limit yourselves to what is mandated under judicial reviews, or did you do an in-depth review of the files so as to carry out a type of hearing on paper in a way?