We worked really hard to make sure, as I mentioned before, that we didn't infringe on judicial accountability, because of the constitutionality of it. We wanted to make sure that this bill could pass and that it would be viable, but that we could also make it effective and try to effect some change.
That is why we target lawyers and the criteria for a lawyer to be appointed to the bench by the justice minister. They would, as I said, have to meet the criterion that they have had comprehensive training in sexual assault law.
Furthermore, concerning the reporting mechanism for sitting judges, we're not directly telling the Judicial Council that they have to mandate training, but we're trying to effect some level of accountability and transparency by making the case that they make the type of training known very transparently, because right now they don't; that we know how many trials a judge would oversee before receiving the training; and that we know how many judges have received the training. That's about as close as we could come to imposing some level of transparency and accountability without infringing on judicial independence.