As maybe just a quick reaction, I agree; the DAS scandal underwrites the central point that the Colombian state has not only no credibility to report on human rights violations, but the notion that it would openly consult and work with human rights groups to put together the report is put to shame by the fact that it has clearly, over the last years, been targeting these groups, providing information to paramilitaries so that they can in fact be assassinated.
It isn't possible, in the context of the factual evidence being released by these investigations, by the statements from the Supreme Court in Colombia, to then in fact agree that the Colombian government would have the credibility and capacity to write its own report on the impacts of the trade agreement.
If these kinds of issues were also missing from the reports from the Canadian government officials, that is also quite worrisome.
The importance of a human rights impact assessment is that there's such a political cloud around how everybody speaks. The report by CCIC has been available for a year by legal experts. We weren't called. We weren't asked to contribute to or discuss the creation of a human rights impact assessment. It makes more sense, if people aren't prepared to act on these recommendations, that an independent group be set up, but one in which the government has committed to respond to the reaction.
So I repeat, it would be really important in the amendment that it be clear that it not only be a prior assessment, but that it be independently carried out and that there be a commitment to act on the results and recommendations. All those three things are missing right now.