I was wondering whether I could respond to your second question about the details of the military commissions process. Ajmal talked about some of them.
Even after the amendments that occurred in 2006, many of the central features of the new military commissions process are still contrary to what I would say is the general consensus regarding the rule of law. Ajmal pointed to one example, which is the admissibility of hearsay evidence, which in Canadian and American courts is not normally applicable, subject to certain exceptions, but is a broad right under the military commissions process.
Another one that I think is quite troubling is that previously, before the amendments, defence counsel didn't have access to materials about Omar and the facts and so on. Now they do have access, but it's only at the trial. They are not allowed to see things beforehand or to vet the information in any way. The material they see at trial is already blacked out on national security grounds.
The problematic point in addition to that is that the judge will see the unedited versions. So the same person who is going to try Omar will see the unedited versions of the materials, which will then be blacked out and handed to the defence.
A similar point is one Mr. Silva brought up earlier, the prospect of indefinite detention even if there is an acquittal.
Finally, it's expressed under the Military Commissions Act of 2006 that detainees cannot rely upon or claim their Geneva convention rights. Those four, right there, we think are quite serious affronts to the rule of law, and I think there's an emerging consensus on that.