United Celts wrote:Mac Lochlainn clears his throat before continuing. "With all due respect to the Queleshi ambassador, can we not exclude the double jeopardy provisions from your proposal and bring them up later for the sake of passing a habeas corpus protection of some kind, as the Ossitanian ambassador previously suggested?
Now this I am willing to consider, though at this time I don't make any promises. I think that habeas corpus and double jeopardy are inherently related, but I don't necessarily have an objection to handling them in two separate proposals.
That said, I'm not convinced that this proposal and my proposal are actually contradictory, the relevant clause of my proposal being about retrials and this proposal being all about appeals.
Also, I definitely oppose mandating that the prosecution have an equal right to appeal as the defense in every WA member state. In Quelesh the prosecution cannot appeal an acquittal, and we have no intention of changing that. I also oppose limiting by WA law the circumstances in which member states may allow the defense to appeal a conviction. I would support mandating that member states allow the appeal of a conviction at minimum on the listed grounds.
This proposal as worded is not something that I would be able to support, but I'll consider handling double jeopardy and the remainder of the habeas corpus provisions in separate resolutions. Even if I do split the resolutions into two, however, I do not intend to abandon the effort to ban double jeopardy; I've been transparent about that intention from the beginning.