Your Honour, I fully appreciate your remarks, but, your Honour, the point remains that the letter you just read is predicated upon a number of reasons which impact on adequate resources, and of course we were assigned to a mission to consult with the accused on his defence problems and that mission produced an undertaking. It has not given the accused the opportunity to call the shots here. No. It produces an undertaking of his willingness to continue to participate because we -- from our experience and from the experience of this Court and other courts that self-representation will not be in the interests of justice, despite whatever the accused may have said, we prevailed on him that it is not the best way to go. But, again, he has the final decision to make. We can only advise from the provisions of Rule 45. So that letter is predicated on a number of issues which are resources.