Might I butt in here, please? I think this comes back—I don't want to look back, but I must—to this: In this day and age, the question now is how we evolve international law to the next level. It has moved so far to where it is. What else can be done? I return to whatever we can do to avoid a scenario where wars are being discussed as something that happens in ordinary course. Once somebody starts that war of aggression, we're talking about collateral damage. Mr. Robinson talked about that, which is true. International law recognizes that. Not everyone who dies in war has died as a result of sinister behaviour.
How do we stop getting to that point to begin with, so we don't have this discussion, this justification of killing human beings and destroying their lives? That is why I said, let's look at whatever we can do.
I do believe that beyond the prosecutorial question and this I believe is simply getting the question that was asked—