I don't know for sure but to me that's how I'd put it. The Court should go ahead with it as the facts are yes the course of justice was altered, no doubt, and no, think the debate around it will prove that, the state's secrecy laws goals were not to alter the course of justice it is rather an unintended consequence. That said, if, as a result the private parties involved cannot be anymore prosecuted and that, because the state secrecy laws involved have prevented the due course of justice to do so, there can be little doubt that the state which provided unwillingly but actively a shelter to these private parties will have to take up the role they can have in a legal suit both because the state laws provided a shelter to any private parties involved in wrong doing but overwhelmingly because it fell to act to prevent the unintended consequence to become permanent.