That's a very good question. It really presents the issue very starkly: whether, when you have two court systems, one of which is neutral and objective and has very professional judges and a completely professional prosecutor on it, as the International Criminal Court does, and another court, which has been--up to now, at least--tinged with politics, bringing a case in the first court could have a negative impact on the second court.
My own view, which would be subject to reconsideration, obviously, based on new evidence, would be no; in a case like this, the issue is so clear that I think the International Court of Justice would have to condemn and would have to make the findings that would be conducive to doing justice and acting preventively in this case.
This is not a close case on its facts. Therefore, I would have more confidence in the International Court of Justice than I might in a more controversial or closer case. I mean, Ahmadinejad presents an embarrassment to the world. Even at the United Nations, when he spoke there, nobody wanted him to speak there. He had to be allowed to speak. The UN didn't want him to speak. They tried to distance themselves from his talk. But they were unable to do so.
So I think the International Court of Justice would, as they say, do the right thing in a case of this kind.