It's right in the act.
The first part of it, the creation of a statutory presumption of reliability of unsworn hearsay evidence, is in the act.
In 2006, on a constitutional challenge to the regime in a case called Ferras, the Supreme Court tried to save the system, saying that they have to equip judges to be able to assess reliability. The problem is that since 2006, Ferras has proven to be a false promise, because this mountain of a wall that is demonstrable manifest unreliability has never been achieved. You can't do it.
If Diab did not, with all the experts in the world.... Let me explain.
With the first two alleged handwriting samples used by France against Dr. Diab, it turned out that the two supposed experts in France relied on the wrong person's known handwriting. They were not comparing Dr. Diab's handwriting. They were comparing his wife's handwriting. They identified her as that 40- to 45-year-old male bomber who signed in at the hotel.
When that came out through expert evidence by the international experts, who recognized that they weren't even comparing Dr. Diab's handwriting.... This was another person's handwriting. They got another person. That person did not follow accepted methodology.
The Swiss experts said it's totally unreliable. The leading Americans said it was unreliable. The leading U.K. authorities said it was unreliable. The leading Canadians said it was unreliable.
That has grown up in the case law, but it should be clear that if you don't have this presumption, you haven't put a reverse onus on the person.