 The judge basically has on the table lots of cards to get out of the pressure she has. Lots of cards. The political card, this is a political crime. The awful conditions in prison. The health condition of Julian. And now she has this one, this one which invalidates any court proceedings. They were spying on Julian's lawyers. But not only that UC Global was spying on Julian's lawyers and we assume that they were giving everything to the United States. When Julian was evicted, the new government, the government of Benimoreno sees all Julian's belongings illegally. And between that is absolutely true that he had confidential information about his legal strategy, legal documents that he was having with his lawyers. And we know that Ecuador has handed that over everything to the United States. That's no doubt, that's public. What came from the testimonies is that they were discussing the possibility of leaving the door open inadvertently and basically allowing the kidnapping of Julian and also the poisoning which is shocking. Can I just talk about this issue about this information being irrelevant about UC Global, it is not irrelevant. I mean, you do not extradite people to a country whose government employs private contractors to spy on that person, spy on them when they're talking to their lawyers and perhaps even plot to kill them. I used to work for 12 years in the law courts of justice. I know of cases where judges used to make orders to take people off planes that were going to send them to particular countries where far less happened than that. I mean, this is highly relevant. This is absolutely fundamental. And if the judge who is considering this case properly considers this evidence, most of which is backed now by judicial findings in the Spanish court, I mean, she cannot extradite him. That's my own personal view. I mean, I can't see how she can extradite him but you're perfectly correct. I mean, the one thing we've heard in this court is that we were able to hear this massive evidence about the work that Julian Assange and Wicke Leek did and this massive evidence shows the extent to which they exposed war crimes, crimes against humanity, egregious human rights abuses, all of these things, things which the United States is trying to conceal under the classification process. He's been tried because he exposed those things or rather he is, the United States is seeking to extradite him to the United States to try him and jail him because he exposed those things. That too is a fundamental reason why he should not be extradited. And I'm going to just finish and add that while I was there at the very last day of the trial yesterday, the actual hearing, and one of the things that is absolutely astonishing which came out very clearly is that there is still uncertainty about what precise charges Julian Assange is going to face if he goes to the United States and the judge is actually asking the US government's British lawyers to actually clarify that by Monday. How can you actually conduct a whole hearing, discuss extraditing someone to a country where the charges may change from one day to the next and are still not even clear at this stage? They are as Fidel absolutely rightly said, multiple reasons why he cannot be extradited but this affair with juicy global ought to put the matter beyond doubt and if Britain, and I speak now as a British citizen extradites Julian Assange in these circumstances then they will be directly complicit in the perpetration of the war crimes which he exposed, they will be complicit because they have been complicit in the punishment of the person who exposed them. Now, Alexander, if he goes to Alexandria it'll be like in Dan's case probably a strict liability case. He won't be able to say why he did what he did and we won't be able to discuss the classified information that was discussed in Barate's court. So I think that's a strong terrible difference there that there was no public interest defense in the US where we saw it on display in Barate's court because they were able to discuss why Julian did this. They brought witnesses in explaining the values of what WikiLeaks did. Dan, don't you expect and also Alexander that in the US it'll be a strict liability and we won't hear any of this if he gets that far? The government takes a case of why this was so classified and so they won't want to talk about parts of this that make the government look bad. They want to just, as in my case, pick out parts that don't look that interesting but happen to be stamped secret. By the way, in my case, every page was stamped top secret, sensitive. In this case, nothing higher than secret and even unclassified. But even so they'll want to say, yes, this was a stamp. They won't want to talk about the substance. But the point you just made, Joe, and I want to put it to Alexander too to see if I'm right on this, my understanding that is even though after the jury in the Clive Ponting case of a leak did acquit Ponting, despite an almost direct order or direction directive from the judge that he should be found guilty, they accepted the public interest case that what Clive Ponting had put on was clearly in the public interest to know whereupon Britain removed from the official secrets act, as I understand it, public interest defense. So Ponting couldn't have put on that question and why he did what he did and whether it helped the public interest at all. But as I understand it, the European Convention on Human Rights is there as an appeal point and which Britain is obligated to observe. And that does require, as it should, a public interest defense to be made. US is not under the European Convention of Human Rights. They are not subject to it. They do not accept under the Espionage Act, which is a strict liability act. It just says that you can only say, did you do the acts that are forbidden here and not why you did them or what the impact of them was. He would not be able to discuss any of that. Therefore, Alexandra, I'd like to put it to you. It seems to me that I don't see how the judge can remove him from the jurisdiction of Europe or London where he would be subject, in any case, to the public interest defense under the European Convention. How can they extradite him to a country where he would not have that defense? That doesn't seem to me right. I think you're absolutely right. I mean, the fact is he doesn't have many of the protections, which he should do. I mean, the public interest defense derives, as you correctly say, from the European Convention of Human Rights, which is a part of our law. It's actually part of our law. British courts must take it into account in any proceedings. They must take it into account in these proceedings. If he's going to be deprived of that protection and be transferred to the United States and tried in a situation where he would have fewer rights than he would in Britain, then I don't think he can be extradited. But I mean, it's only one reason amongst many why he can't be extradited. I mean, the UC Global one, I think ought to, in any sensible place, put the question beyond any doubt. Of course, the Ponting decision and the change of the law that followed it was made by Margaret Thatcher's government, which is before the European Convention of Human Rights became part of our law. So the Blair government then brought it in in 1998. It became part of our law in 2001. It became an effective part of our law. It still is an operative part of our law. And can I say, judges in Britain, certainly the senior judiciary, take it very seriously and are protective of it. And I think they will be concerned if they think that someone who carried out the trade of journalism in Britain or at least engaged in journalistic activities in Britain who is protected by British law through the European Convention of Human Rights were taken away to a country where those protections were taken from him.