In terms of the question with respect to the child soldier, it's not our intent to say that it would be a violation of the convention. I think it might be a violation of the spirit of the convention, which encourages rehabilitation. But there's no specific provision that precludes prosecution. What the convention requires is that before a child soldier is prosecuted he is treated as a youth, and that there's a determination as to the appropriateness of proceeding with the trial. This is precisely the way the Canadian legal system approaches young offenders under the Youth Criminal Justice Act, which is that you are charged as a child, you are processed as a youth, and the judge then determines whether it's appropriate for you to be prosecuted as an adult or not.
I think that answers the first question.
In terms of what things Mr. Khadr could be charged with, with respect to the issue of whether or not he killed the soldier, in light of the evidence that has come out--albeit by mistake, through documents that weren't supposed to be disclosed but were--I think there's now serious doubt as to whether there is any evidence that Mr. Khadr actually killed anyone.
Obviously, without knowing the particulars of all the evidence, just based on media reports, I would say that as a Canadian citizen, Mr. Khadr can be charged under the provisions of our Criminal Code--for example, under section 83.18, facilitating the commission of a terrorist offence. Those provisions of our Criminal Code apply to terrorist offences committed anywhere in the world by a Canadian citizen, and we would have universal jurisdiction over those offences. Mr. Khadr could be charged if there were evidence, and based on media reports, it appears that there might be evidence of facilitating a terrorist act.