Professor Fyfe is obviously not satisfied with the legal framework in which he must operate, whereas Mr. Shur does seem satisfied with it, although there is still room for improvement.
Another legal framework concerns me: that of criminal procedure obligations. Do you see any legal barriers to the system's utility? One of the obstacles is the absolute obligation, in common law, whether it be in the United States, England or Canada, for the jury to know all the benefits that have been given to witnesses, whereas that is not the case in other European jurisdictions.
Personally, are you satisfied with this second legal framework, not the framework of the protection system, but rather the one you rely on in order to get convictions?