The only evidence that his fleeing to Nigeria might be related to the Special Court is that he was then aware of an indictment, so he was becoming, in effect, a fugitive from justice. That warrants no reduction in sentence.
And as to provisions in the United Kingdom, first of all, it's unclear whether the -- any actions by the international courts would actually have any weight or that the United Kingdom's rules would actually apply in the international criminal courts. But beyond that, and more significantly, in the United Kingdom, a person being given bail of any sort with any sort of monitoring provisions is a person who is being released from the custody of the court in front of whom his case is being tried.
That's not true of Nigeria. This case did not order Nigeria, which it had no authority to do, or even ask or request Nigeria to hold Mr Taylor in de facto arrest because there was a case before it. It's totally different in the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom does not at all speak of a situation where a person flees to a third country and allegedly has some sort of restrictions on his movement. It's for the United Kingdom where a person is released from the custody of the court in front of whom his case is being heard, and that's not at all the case here.
And we reiterate that in our view, the evidence is totally the contrary. It's now simply a good argument for them to make, but the accused himself contradicts that argument. He was not under any de facto house arrest in Nigeria, and even if he was, because it was not a result of the actions of this Court by order or request, then it should be given no weight.