That is a decision of the judge. In fact, the minister in the U.K. has a very limited role now. The minister used to have a very broad discretion, in the same way as I think you currently have in Canada, but over time, that has been narrowed down for the reasons I gave in my opening remarks.
The review that I carried out recommended that the minister's discretion be narrowed even further. At that point, the minister was still considering human rights [Technical difficulty—Editor], because we took the view that these were really judicial decisions. They should be taken uninfluenced by political considerations, and be dealt with in a transparent way. In fact, the U.K. government agreed with that.
In the U.K., the minister now only looks if there is a risk of the death penalty, and if so, whether an assurance been given that it won't be carried out. Are there specialty undertakings in place, i.e., is the country agreed the person is only going to be prosecuted for the offence the person is being extradited for? If there's an earlier extradition request from another country, how do you do a competing request? The minister has a very limited set of questions to deal with, and they're very technical, essentially, in application. All the other issues are now dealt with by the courts.