We dealt both with the judiciary and the Ministerio Público around that. We were working with the previous attorney general, who was removed. Then we were involved at the time that they created their transition team, which they imposed, and then they created the new attorney general's position, which of course is subsequent.
On the issue of whether the state is going to intervene, again I don't know. Certainly there were a lot of people who felt that what they did was not proper, that it was not constitutional. Their argument was that they had to do it, because the systems weren't functioning. Certainly in the judges' case it was different, but in the case of the Ministerio Público that was their argument. I don't know whether or not.... I think it's a troubling thing they did. What I can tell you is that the new attorney general we are working closely with and we are finding that there is the openness to try to implement some of the necessary changes required.
You have to realize that in some of these things there is always this big battle over money. They don't have enough money. When we deal with things like when we created with them the forensic video team, part of the issue after we created the team was they had to hire the people and they had to keep them on staff, but we had to say to them that they have to pay them properly. Of course these become the issues where you're not just dealing with technical things, but you're dealing with operational issues in an environment of very short resources. In those cases, we have found the commitment that they are willing to do that and they're willing to come up to that level; otherwise we train people and then they're going to leave because they're not getting enough pay.
I guess the problem you have here is you're talking about a political question and I don't know how to answer that, other than to say that what happened is troubling and we hope that it doesn't happen again.