 I think the trial was immensely important. I think it demonstrated that there are Guatemalan prosecutors and judges who are willing to grapple seriously with the crimes of the past and they put on the evidence that was necessary in order to establish, I think, beyond a reasonable doubt that General F. Ryan Riosmont was responsible for the crime of genocide. They gave victims an opportunity to have their say in court, to be subject to cross-examination and, nevertheless, to be able to adhere to their stories effectively and make them persuasive. And even though the Constitutional Court has annulled the verdict, I think the verdict of history is in. The responsibility of General Riosmont for genocide was firmly established. Well, I think the charge of genocide was appropriate. That is, I do think that the killings did take place on ethnic grounds. The Isheel were identified by the military with the EGP, one of the four guerrilla groups in Guatemala, and young children were killed as well as adults. So it wasn't just an attempt to wipe out combatants or potential combatants. Most of the people who died were killed execution style rather than in combat. And I think those are the the characteristics which helped to define the crime of genocide. I think it's important because we have come to regard genocide as the ultimate crime. There has not been a case previously in which a head of state or a former head of state was tried in a national court for the crime of genocide. A head of government, the former prime minister of Rwanda, was convicted of genocide by an international tribunal. But an international tribunal operates in a way that is remote from the country, whereas this took place within Guatemala. And I think the resonance of the case within Guatemala is far greater than if this had taken place in an international tribunal. It means to me that it's a major step in what has been an ongoing struggle against impunity. There was a book published a couple of years ago which counted some 67 cases in which heads of state or heads of government had been prosecuted between 1990 and 2009, either for human rights violations or for corruption or for a combination of the two. Of course, many of those did not result in convictions. But this was the most serious set of charges that was heard in a national court for among the most serious set of crimes that was committed during the post-World War II period. And as such, it's an immense step in the direction of eroding that sense of impunity that former or the dictators have had when they have been the authors of major crimes. Anybody who is in that position of power again has to think twice or three times or more before engaging in this kind of criminality ever again. I imagine that it is immensely important to them. One of the things that I learned in conducting human rights investigations all over the world is that everyone who has been victimized by terrible abuses of human rights wants the story to be known, that if the story is suppressed, they feel doubly victimized, triply victimized by the fact that it is suppressed, and that accountability tends to matter a great deal to the victims.