There's an issue of criminal intent in all these cases. The press would have to know that the person is in the witness protection program and that they are indirectly identifying him. The act is not that specific on the issue of photographs or drawings of a person, and that would have to be looked at as an indirect disclosure in some fashion, if they did so.
We caution the press to be mindful of section 11, and that they should govern themselves accordingly. In these cases, they are all looked at in some way to ensure that we aren't permitting and condoning violations of section 11, but so far we haven't been in a situation where we've clearly seen there's a reasonable prospect of a conviction for the press disclosing information. We have made attempts in court to limit the disclosure by invoking the Canada Evidence Act, and have had success in getting bans and publication orders for those kinds of disclosures.