[CHALLENGE] Repeal P. Innocents

[Separatist Peoples]

The Secretariat just discarded my Repeal "On Universal Jurisdiction" for saying that an international court could not be established. It did not say that any international court or all kinds of international courts could not be established. It could easily have been read as "some international courts", which "is okay".

If you would like to admit error in that repeal, especially since Separatist Peoples made that exact argument and I made a similar one saying that international court should be interpreted based on plain meaning, I would be happy to hear it. Unless that is going to suddenly happen or unless the identity of a person making a challenge now matters in evaluating them, these cases should be treated exactly the same.

Context. The exact wording used around the term in question makes a difference. If you had said

Seeing that this section prohibits the Assembly from establishing international courts,

then I might (repeat, "might"...) have considered the comparison you've just suggested correct... but what you actually said in your repeal was

Seeing that it is patently obvious that this section prohibits the Assembly from establishing an international court,

which -- at least to me -- "patently obviously" indicates a total restriction on creating any such court instead.
You're in danger of beginning to look like the sort of player who posts in Moderation to challenge warnings with complaints that "But you let [NAME} use that word in their thread". Context, context, context.
I am not going to waste time (especially as it's patently obvious that the 'discard' can't be reversed, anyway) discussing this argument any further.

Hang on. How does "patently obvious" as a display of incredulity affect the clear fact that GenSec marked IA's repeal as illegal for claiming that OUJ bars a criminal court? That makes no sense. Patently obvious does not change the meaning of the phrase substantively.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Context. The exact wording used around the term in question makes a difference. If you had said

Seeing that this section prohibits the Assembly from establishing international courts,

then I might (repeat, "might"...) have considered the comparison you've just suggested correct... but what you actually said in your repeal was

Seeing that it is patently obvious that this section prohibits the Assembly from establishing an international court,

which -- at least to me -- "patently obviously" indicates a total restriction on creating any such court instead.
You're in danger of beginning to look like the sort of player who posts in Moderation to challenge warnings with complaints that "But you let [NAME} use that word in their thread". Context, context, context.
I am not going to waste time (especially as it's patently obvious that the 'discard' can't be reversed, anyway) discussing this argument any further.

About "But you let [NAME} use that word in their thread": First, moderation does not run on a heavily precedent-based system of what is effectively case law. The GA does. Second, the argument you made above is the exact same argument you rejected literally two days ago. I made that argument here. And Separatist Peoples also made that argument here. This isn't about "but you let this other person do this", it is about whether precedent at all matters, because there is no different in context.

You claim that "patently obvious" modifies the prohibition, but that is clearly modifying the word "section". It has no impact on the repeal's claim of whether an international court cannot be established. This contextual difference does not exist because the two things you wrote in boxes supra make the same claim.

• Even if it does modify the prohibition, "patently obvious" does not mean "totally in all cases", it means that it is clearly true. It still has no impact on the claim itself.
  
• Even if it this non-existent difference does exist, the use of "patently obvious" is expressing the same kind of incredulity as the use of the word "arbitrarily" at the front of the clause in question and the proposal is illegal.

You then assert that you don't want to discuss a decision just made because they cannot be reversed. This proves too much. If we accept that warrant, we should never discuss or bring up any previous decisions ever because the past is not malleable.

But perhaps that simply means that precedents should be accepted on face value without discussion. If that is the case, your two positions are not internally consistent. Either precedent matters, we authors need to stick with literal interpretations, and the repeal is illegal... or precedent doesn't matter, we can impute subsets when they are not written, and the repeal is legal. There is no middle ground where one of those three things can cross to the other side, since each thing requires the other two.

[Bananaistan]

FWIW I agree with BA that the challenged proposal is legal on the first part of the challenge and I also don't feel that this is inconsistent with the decision made in Repeal OUJ. The claim made in repeal OUJ was that the section in question prohibits the establishment of an international court. Where I differ with BA is that I think "patently obvious" is immaterial. It was patently obvious (or it was just plainly obvious or perhaps that should be literally obvious?) that OUJ did not prevent the Independent Adjudicative Office being established in Administrative Compliance Act. That was an international court of sorts and IMO is prove of the main part of the problematic clause (IE "this section prohibits the Assembly from establishing an international court") being a false claim.

In this case, the claim is that the the target prevents member states from extraditing criminals to nations with capital punishment. I can point to an example of a criminal who member nations would be prevented from extraditing because the criminal likely to be charged with a capital offence falls under that section of the target. That IMO makes it a reasonable claim about the target which falls within the allowable embellishments and exaggerations under the honest mistake.

So on the one hand, I see international courts that can be set up despite the claim in repeal OUJ, OTOH I can see criminals which can't be extradited as claimed in repeal P. Innocents.

Generally I don't get into the whole literal meaning vs plain meaning which has recently reared its head. I can only take what I see as reasonable interpretations of the words as written. Whether that's literal or plain, IDK, but, also generally, where a competing reasonable interpretation which differs to mine would render a repeal legal I will accept it. I'd also urge caution regarding precedent and honest mistake rulings which many times are incredibly specific to the words used in the challenged repeal and the target. If that falls within some specific legal principle or tradition, great. If not, I'm not a lawyer.

[Separatist Peoples]

FWIW I agree with BA that the challenged proposal is legal on the first part of the challenge and I also don't feel that this is inconsistent with the decision made in Repeal OUJ. The claim made in repeal OUJ was that the section in question prohibits the establishment of an international court. Where I differ with BA is that I think "patently obvious" is immaterial. It was patently obvious (or it was just plainly obvious or perhaps that should be literally obvious?) that OUJ did not prevent the Independent Adjudicative Office being established in Administrative Compliance Act. That was an international court of sorts and IMO is prove of the main part of the problematic clause (IE "this section prohibits the Assembly from establishing an international court") being a false claim.

In this case, the claim is that the the target prevents member states from extraditing criminals to nations with capital punishment. I can point to an example of a criminal who member nations would be prevented from extraditing because the criminal likely to be charged with a capital offence falls under that section of the target. That IMO makes it a reasonable claim about the target which falls within the allowable embellishments and exaggerations under the honest mistake.

If a repeal's claim that OUJ bars an international court is illegal when it bars everything that makes a court a court, then how the hell is a repeal that claims the target bars extradition to states with capital punishment legal when the standard is extradition to states only where the criminal is subject to that charge a legal interpretation? The two are objectively different claims.

[Auralia]

If a repeal's claim that OUJ bars an international court is illegal when it bars everything that makes a court a court...

OUJ certainly does not do that with respect to courts that have nothing to do with war crimes, crimes against humanity, and other crimes for which there is universal jurisdiction. It does not restrict such courts in any way.

[Imperium Anglorum]

In this case, the claim is that the the target prevents member states from extraditing criminals to nations with capital punishment. I can point to an example of a criminal who member nations would be prevented from extraditing because the criminal likely to be charged with a capital offence falls under that section of the target.

I too can point to an example of a court which the World Assembly could be prevented from establishing because it falls afoul of the Forbids clause: a court exactly like that established in the resolution International Criminal Court. If your standard is 'there exist kinds of X which are prohibited by clause Y', then this too is internally inconsistent vis-à-vis the logic from the precedent established two days ago.

It seems that what you're telling me is this:

There exists a type of	international court	which is prohibited from being	established	by the forbids clause,	but in spite of that, it is an	Honest Mistake
There exists a type of	criminal	which is prohibited from being	extradited	by section 7,	thus it is not an	Honest Mistake

It was patently obvious (or it was just plainly obvious or perhaps that should be literally obvious?) that OUJ did not prevent the Independent Adjudicative Office being established in Administrative Compliance Act. That was an international court of sorts and IMO is prove of the main part of the problematic clause (IE "this section prohibits the Assembly from establishing an international court") being a false claim.

Similarly, the application of 'there exist kinds of X which can happen in spite of clause Y' is too internally inconsistent:

There exists a type of	international court	which can be	established	in spite of the forbids clause,	thus, it is an	Honest Mistake
There exists a type of	criminal	which can be	extradited	in spite of section 7,	but nevertheless, it is not an	Honest Mistake

I provided an example of a criminal who can be extradited in the OP: a burglar can be extradited a state which reserves capital punishment solely to traitors and murderers. The target resolution does not prohibit "member states from extraditing criminals to nations with capital punishment" any more than the Forbids clause "prohibits the Assembly from establishing an international court".

OUJ certainly does not do that with respect to courts that have nothing to do with war crimes, crimes against humanity, and other crimes for which there is universal jurisdiction. It does not restrict such courts in any way.

P Innocents certainly does not do that with respect to criminals that have nothing to do with a capital offence. It does not restrict such extradition actions in any way.

Added table. Added response to Auralia. Corrected spacing. Edited underline. Edited in clarification words. Corrected typo. Added table. Added clarification to why a table is introduced. Localised a quote to make it more clear what was being responded to. Edited in conclusion sentence. Edited in an addition to this edit statement (got annoyed by how many edits are being made). Clarified a statement. Clarified another statement. Clarified 'there exist kinds of X' and other like sentences, which were less than 100 per cent clear.

[Bananaistan]

FWIW I agree with BA that the challenged proposal is legal on the first part of the challenge and I also don't feel that this is inconsistent with the decision made in Repeal OUJ. The claim made in repeal OUJ was that the section in question prohibits the establishment of an international court. Where I differ with BA is that I think "patently obvious" is immaterial. It was patently obvious (or it was just plainly obvious or perhaps that should be literally obvious?) that OUJ did not prevent the Independent Adjudicative Office being established in Administrative Compliance Act. That was an international court of sorts and IMO is prove of the main part of the problematic clause (IE "this section prohibits the Assembly from establishing an international court") being a false claim.

In this case, the claim is that the the target prevents member states from extraditing criminals to nations with capital punishment. I can point to an example of a criminal who member nations would be prevented from extraditing because the criminal likely to be charged with a capital offence falls under that section of the target. That IMO makes it a reasonable claim about the target which falls within the allowable embellishments and exaggerations under the honest mistake.

If a repeal's claim that OUJ bars an international court is illegal when it bars everything that makes a court a court, then how the hell is a repeal that claims the target bars extradition to states with capital punishment legal when the standard is extradition to states only where the criminal is subject to that charge a legal interpretation? The two are objectively different claims.

Since when is the ability to try and convict war criminals the sole defining feature of a court? Here's a list of international courts not all of which have the authority to try and convict war criminals. And in the context of NS, one could easily imagine a far greater range of such institutions being set up.

In this case, the claim is that the the target prevents member states from extraditing criminals to nations with capital punishment. I can point to an example of a criminal who member nations would be prevented from extraditing because the criminal likely to be charged with a capital offence falls under that section of the target.

I too can point to an example of a court which the World Assembly could be prevented from establishing because it falls afoul of the Forbids clause: a court exactly like that established in the resolution International Criminal Court. If your standard is 'there exist kinds of X which are prohibited by clause Y', then this too is internally inconsistent vis-à-vis the logic from the precedent established two days ago.

It seems that what you're telling me is this:

There exists a type of	international court	which is prohibited from being	established	by the forbids clause,	but in spite of that, it is an	Honest Mistake
There exists a type of	criminal	which is prohibited from being	extradited	by section 7,	thus it is not an	Honest Mistake

It was patently obvious (or it was just plainly obvious or perhaps that should be literally obvious?) that OUJ did not prevent the Independent Adjudicative Office being established in Administrative Compliance Act. That was an international court of sorts and IMO is prove of the main part of the problematic clause (IE "this section prohibits the Assembly from establishing an international court") being a false claim.

Similarly, the application of 'there exist kinds of X which can happen in spite of clause Y' is too internally inconsistent:

There exists a type of	international court	which can be	established	in spite of the forbids clause,	thus, it is an	Honest Mistake
There exists a type of	criminal	which can be	extradited	in spite of section 7,	but nevertheless, it is not an	Honest Mistake

I provided an example of a criminal who can be extradited in the OP: a burglar can be extradited a state which reserves capital punishment solely to traitors and murderers. The target resolution does not prohibit "member states from extraditing criminals to nations with capital punishment" any more than the Forbids clause "prohibits the Assembly from establishing an international court".

1) There exists many types of international court which can be set up. To say that an international court cannot be set up is therefore false. The repeal specifically said that "an international court" is prevented. To me, that is outright false because I have outlined at least one type of court (and there are many others) which are not prohibited and therefore I haven't looked any further because it seems clear cut based purely on the words used in that clause.

2) There exists many types of criminals which member states cannot extradite. To say that member states cannot extradite criminals to the relevant jurisdictions is therefore not false. I do not see why it's necessary to imply that the word criminals means "all criminals" or "any criminal" and not "some criminals".

[Mundiferrum]

snip

Wait, the reasoning behind that is a little iffy....

"An international court" can either imply all courts cannot be set up, or some courts cannot be set up.

If some courts can be set up, then all courts cannot be set up is false, but some courts cannot be set up is either true or false.

Some courts can be set up.

Therefore, all courts cannot be set up is false, but some courts cannot be set up is either true or false.

"Criminals" can either imply all criminals cannot be extradited, or some criminals cannot be extradited.

If some criminals cannot be extradited, then all criminals cannot be extradited is true, and some criminals cannot be extradited is also true.

Some criminals cannot be extradited.

Therefore, all criminals cannot be extradited is true, and some criminals cannot be extradited is also true.

But the question is whether "criminals" or "an international court" implies "all" or "some".

Assuming both phrases imply "all", then "an international court" is false, while "criminals" is true.

Assuming both phrases imply "some", then "criminals" is still true, while "an international court" is either true or false.

According to the post replied to, it is not necessary to imply that "criminals" means "all"; therefore, it could be interpreted as "some".

The question is: if that kind of reasoning is applied to "criminals", why is it not applied to "an international court"?

And when that kind of reasoning is applied to "an international court", what would make it so that saying "some international courts cannot be established" is false under the terms of the target resolution?

[Imperium Anglorum]

I too can point to an example of a court which the World Assembly could be prevented from establishing because it falls afoul of the Forbids clause: a court exactly like that established in the resolution International Criminal Court. If your standard is 'there exist kinds of X which are prohibited by clause Y', then this too is internally inconsistent vis-à-vis the logic from the precedent established two days ago.

It seems that what you're telling me is this:

There exists a type of	international court	which is prohibited from being	established	by the forbids clause,	but in spite of that, it is an	Honest Mistake
There exists a type of	criminal	which is prohibited from being	extradited	by section 7,	thus it is not an	Honest Mistake

Similarly, the application of 'there exist kinds of X which can happen in spite of clause Y' is too internally inconsistent:

There exists a type of	international court	which can be	established	in spite of the forbids clause,	thus, it is an	Honest Mistake
There exists a type of	criminal	which can be	extradited	in spite of section 7,	but nevertheless, it is not an	Honest Mistake

I provided an example of a criminal who can be extradited in the OP: a burglar can be extradited a state which reserves capital punishment solely to traitors and murderers. The target resolution does not prohibit "member states from extraditing criminals to nations with capital punishment" any more than the Forbids clause "prohibits the Assembly from establishing an international court".

1) There exists many types of international court which can be set up. To say that an international court cannot be set up is therefore false. The repeal specifically said that "an international court" is prevented. To me, that is outright false because I have outlined at least one type of court (and there are many others) which are not prohibited and therefore I haven't looked any further because it seems clear cut based purely on the words used in that clause.

2) There exists many types of criminals which member states cannot extradite. To say that member states cannot extradite criminals to the relevant jurisdictions is therefore not false. I do not see why it's necessary to imply that the word criminals means "all criminals" or "any criminal" and not "some criminals".

Because that's internally inconsistent and applying two different standards to the same thing.

The use of the standard that "there exists X which make the statement true" also happens to overrule your decision from two days ago. By that exact reasoning: There exist many types of courts which cannot be established. To say that international courts cannot be established is therefore true. I do not see why it's necessary to imply that the word court means "all courts" or "any court" and not "some courts".

You might think I'm trying to re-litigate the last decision. I'm not. I'm merely trying to get you to apply your last decision consistently over a period three days over two points in the same post.

You just wrote above "that is outright false because I have outlined at least one type of court (and there are many others) which are not prohibited". To say that criminals cannot be extradited to nations with capital punishment is outright false because I have outlined in the OP at least one type of criminal (and there are many others) which is not prohibited from being extradited.

The standard you are using in point 1 and the standard you used three days ago and in point 2 contradict each other by producing different results with the same facts. The reason why it is necessary to imply an "all" is you did so three days ago and in point 1 and because GenSec keeps telling us authors about following precedent. I'd pull out some Path of Law, but that would distract from the point because this is some real special pleading.

In the same post, you flip-flop between a standard of 'there is an X which disproves the statement, illegal' to 'there are Xs where the statement is true, legal'. Insofar as precedent that you made binds you to make a decision one way, the repeal is illegal.

[Auralia]

It would seem that Bananaistan is drawing a distinction between the use of an indefinite article ("an international court") and the use of no article ("criminals").

By saying that the World Assembly cannot establish an international court, the use of "an" implies "any", as in the World Assembly cannot establish any international court. On the other hand, by saying that criminals cannot be extradited, the use of no article implies some but not necessarily all, as in some criminals cannot be extradited.

I'm not saying I agree with this distinction; I'm merely trying to clarify Bananaistan's point.

[Bananaistan]

1) There exists many types of international court which can be set up. To say that an international court cannot be set up is therefore false. The repeal specifically said that "an international court" is prevented. To me, that is outright false because I have outlined at least one type of court (and there are many others) which are not prohibited and therefore I haven't looked any further because it seems clear cut based purely on the words used in that clause.

2) There exists many types of criminals which member states cannot extradite. To say that member states cannot extradite criminals to the relevant jurisdictions is therefore not false. I do not see why it's necessary to imply that the word criminals means "all criminals" or "any criminal" and not "some criminals".

Because that's internally inconsistent and applying two different standards to the same thing.

The use of the standard that "there exists X which make the statement true" also happens to overrule your decision from two days ago. By that exact reasoning: There exist many types of courts which cannot be established. To say that international courts cannot be established is therefore true. I do not see why it's necessary to imply that the word court means "all courts" or "any court" and not "some courts".

You might think I'm trying to re-litigate the last decision. I'm not. I'm merely trying to get you to apply your last decision consistently over a period three days over two points in the same post.

You just wrote above "that is outright false because I have outlined at least one type of court (and there are many others) which are not prohibited". To say that criminals cannot be extradited to nations with capital punishment is outright false because I have outlined in the OP at least one type of criminal (and there are many others) which is not prohibited from being extradited.

The standard you are using in point 1 and the standard you used three days ago and in point 2 contradict each other by producing different results with the same facts. The reason why it is necessary to imply an "all" is you did so three days ago and in point 1 and because GenSec keeps telling us authors about following precedent. I'd pull out some Path of Law, but that would distract from the point because this is some real special pleading.

In the same post, you flip-flop between a standard of 'there is an X which disproves the statement, illegal' to 'there are Xs where the statement is true, legal'. Insofar as precedent that you made binds you to make a decision one way, the repeal is illegal.

This is also a reply to the central point of Mundiferrum's post.

The claim in your repeal did not say "international courts" cannot be established. It said "an international court" cannot be established. This is the key difference which is probably at the root of our difference of opinion here. Had your repeal said "international courts" rather than the singular, I'd argue that it would be fair to say you could infer some, and therefore not an honest mistake etc. In such a circumstance you could equate that clause and ruling with this clause.

Perhaps at this point we should accept that a group of people can look at the same sentence have significantly different interpretations?

Also regarding precedents and advice to authors. I advised caution earlier. I mean even your comments on some of our honest mistake rulings state "Extremely specific ruling, nothing very generalisable" or "Contents specific to the case".

Edit: Re: Auralia's post. Yeah, that's what I'm getting at and have perhaps somewhat explained here. Is this a cultural thing between British and American English?

[Sciongrad]

Context. The exact wording used around the term in question makes a difference. If you had said

Seeing that this section prohibits the Assembly from establishing international courts,

then I might (repeat, "might"...) have considered the comparison you've just suggested correct... but what you actually said in your repeal was

Seeing that it is patently obvious that this section prohibits the Assembly from establishing an international court,

which -- at least to me -- "patently obviously" indicates a total restriction on creating any such court instead.
You're in danger of beginning to look like the sort of player who posts in Moderation to challenge warnings with complaints that "But you let [NAME} use that word in their thread". Context, context, context.
I am not going to waste time (especially as it's patently obvious that the 'discard' can't be reversed, anyway) discussing this argument any further.

Hang on. How does "patently obvious" as a display of incredulity affect the clear fact that GenSec marked IA's repeal as illegal for claiming that OUJ bars a criminal court? That makes no sense. Patently obvious does not change the meaning of the phrase substantively.

OOC: This exactly. The previous ruling essentially prohibits relying on context or plain reading if there is any possibility of ambiguity at all. Whether or not this ruling was right, it's precedent that we just made and have to consider. If we want to follow the ruling set by the challenge against the repeal of OUJ, then this proposal is illegal for violating the honest mistake rule.

[Imperium Anglorum]

The claim in your repeal did not say "international courts" cannot be established. It said "an international court" cannot be established. This is the key difference which is probably at the root of our difference of opinion here. Had your repeal said "international courts" rather than the singular, I'd argue that it would be fair to say you could infer some, and therefore not an honest mistake etc. In such a circumstance you could equate that clause and ruling with this clause.

This is a distinction without a difference. Saying the use of the plural creates a difference does not deal with the fact that:

• the plural of criminal represents the set thereof,
• even if that is not the case, with the use of the singular for international court, interpretation is necessary to establish which international court, which throws the matter back into the question of what exactly makes up the set of international courts, and
• even if that is not the case, any use of the plural where the statement is true has to deal with the fact that it decomposes to a set of singular examples where the statement is true.

The first point means that if I had said that "international courts cannot be established", this is even more of a violation, because it claims that the set of international courts are prohibited from being created. That would in fact be true.

In fact, given the third point, I think use of the singular should be legal, because "an international court" refers to a specific international court. And all that is necessary to prove the truth value of the statement is to produce at least one international court which is prohibited which is trivial to do.

In fact, this is so little of a difference that direct substitution of the words into the exact same chain of logic that you described in the other thread, keeping pluralisation like that in the source, yields the same conclusion.

The target prevents the establishment of an international criminal court dealing with war crimes only. An international court dealing with other criminal matters and non-criminal matters could be established without contradicting the target.

The target prevents the establishment extradition of an international criminal court dealing with war crimes only criminals charged with or likely to be charged with capital offences. An international court dealing Criminals with other criminal matters and non-criminal matters charges could be established extradited without contradicting the target.

But also, "nations" ≠ "jurisdictions". If Massachusetts has banned capital punishment and Texas has not, criminals can still be extradited to Massachusetts which is in the United States. Because the target resolution only deals with "jurisdictions", the use of "nations" is factually incorrect.

[Bananaistan]

... snip ...

I asked the question in my last post whether you could accept if people can have different interpretations of the same set of words. It appears that you can’t. I can. Continuing this seems rather pointless, as it’s just me saying I think the clause means X, you replying with but you said Y here, me saying I think the clause means X, you replying with but you said Z here, me saying I think the clause means X, ...

In any case, at this point GenSec is agreed 3-0 that the proposal is illegal. Accordingly I have asked for a moderator discard.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Will a decision be released? I'm updating the database, and it'd like a decision to nom nom on.

[Wallenburg]

The sad elite insiders in GenSec are WEAK on law and order. We need transparency! Formal opinions or take it to the courts?

[Tinfect]

I'll toss my hat onto the stack; could use the specific line of thought on the violation. Would be useful for the repeal if Auralia's new one fails.

[Xanthal]

The sad elite insiders in GenSec are WEAK on law and order. We need transparency! Formal opinions or take it to the courts?

They might be less sad if you didn't say mean things about them.

[Bananaistan]

*** General Assembly Secretariat Decision ***
Challenged Proposal: Repeal "Preventing The Execution Of Innocents"
Date of Decision: 21 November 2018
Decision: Proposal is illegal, 3-0
Rules Applied: Honest mistake

We find the challenged repeal illegal in respect of the honest mistake rule. Bananaistan wrote the majority opinion, joined by Bears Armed and Separatist Peoples. Sierra Lyricalia recused due to having a competing repeal in drafting.

The repeal was challenged on two points under the honest mistake rule.

The first point was that subsection (i) in the "criticising" section of the repeal which maintains that the target "arbitrarily [prohibits] member states from extraditing criminals to nations with capital punishment" is an honest mistake because:

a) the target uses the formula "any person charged or likely to be charged with a capital offence" which is not synonymous with criminals, and
b) criminals not charged with capital offences could still be extradited.

Despite lengthy discussion in the public challenge thread, GenSec did not reach a consensus on this point of the challenge.

The second point of challenge was the claim in the repeal that the target would "seemingly [permit] a defendant to avoid capital punishment by simply not "exhaust[ing] all available appeals" because then the Division cannot certify the case" was an honest mistake because the Capital Cases Division is not empowered to withhold certification for the reason that not all repeal avenues have been exhausted.

We agree that the target does not establish that the defendant must have exhausted all appeals in order for the Division to certify. We note that the repeal author accepted this claim. We find that this point of the challenge is an honest mistake.