What the enablers do is help to camouflage certain things. Still, before proving that the person has committed a crime for the benefit of the organization, we have to establish the existence of the organization, its structure, its operating methods and its rules of engagement. In one trial we started, we were able to establish a list of 42 points of commonality among the members of the organization. That is the first part.
Then we have to establish that the person acted for the benefit of the organization. That is a factor in the second part. So the first part should not have to be continually done over. That way, we could focus on the fact that the person committed the crime for the benefit of the organization, establish what the person's role was. We would not even have to present the evidence over again in the case of a person who had already been found to be a member of a criminal organization in the past. The point is really to avoid having to prove this over again.
In the case of enablers, people who are not members of the organization, the evidence required is completely different. The enablers are not part of the gang. It is difficult to explain, but let's say that the evidence in the case of gang members and the evidence in the case of enablers, who are not gang members, are two different things. The measure in issue will not help us in the case of enablers. What has to be established is that enablers aided the gang by doing certain things. That is a different kind of participation.