We're not talking about that when we're looking at the security certificate. We're talking about who's been deemed inadmissible, which happens every day, in hundreds of cases. People are deemed inadmissible, and sometimes at that point they in fact go back to their country of origin, or sometimes they appeal. It's understood that for any country that would have to go through the full range of criminal proceedings to deem somebody inadmissible at the border, the border itself would collapse under the weight of that.
But you do have to show some reasonable cause that a person should be deemed as such, and that's why, again, it comes back to the difference of opinion that we have. As far as possible, you need a process in place that will respect rights, but it can't be to the same extent as pursuing somebody for breaking a law and then wanting to put them in jail. This is strictly detaining them while they are appealing, and once the appeal is over, without any hesitation, they're going to be fully free to go back home to their country of origin or to be free to walk around the country. So it is a very different set of circumstances.
In terms of what happens to them when they return home, the courts have been clear that you can't deport somebody if there is, in the court's view, a reasonable prospect that they're going to face torture.