Yes, and this is one of the reasons why I would like us to be considering this to be a treaty. If we consider this to be a treaty, then they are legally bound not to apply the death penalty. If it's simply a code of conduct, then they are not legally bound to refuse to apply the death penalty. There's a reason why we should be talking about this as a treaty, rather than denying that possibility. I think it works better for us if it's a treaty.
On the question about the 1984 torture convention, I believe Afghanistan has ratified it. As far as I know, they have not ratified their own statute of the International Criminal Court, but that does not matter because we have ratified it. Therefore, any Canadian national anywhere in the world who commits a war crime or a crime against humanity is subject to the jurisdiction of the ICC. Our soldiers are still exposed even though the Afghan government has not ratified the Rome Statute.
On your first question, why are things missing, as I said, it was negotiated quickly in the course of a federal election campaign. Also, I suspect—but I am not sure—that it was actually modelled on another pre-existing arrangement, one that may well have been with the United States of America, that was probably entered into in 2002 or 2003 concerning our transfers to U.S. custody during that period. The reference is to the Geneva Convention and common article 3, which would suggest that interpretation. I'm not sure, but one thing is obvious to me. Contrary to what then Minister of National Defence Bill Graham said, the Dutch agreement was not used as a close model, although it may have been a quite distant model. Certainly, some very good things that I think any reasonable person would have recognized the value of in the Dutch agreement did not find their way into the Canadian arrangement. That is what you need to rectify.