Just to point out, the court already ruled in the Abdelrazik case, so it's too late to say there's no court ruling.
Secondly, in the Mohamud case, we relied on the charter to get the government to agree to make consular representations, and one of the things the consulate did was to go before the court in Kenya to ask for an adjournment of the prosecution of Ms. Mohamud while Canada investigated and did the DNA testing. That's also the nuance between ordering some foreign government or court to do X or Y and what consulates can do, which is to make representations to them. That's what we reach through our legal representation.
So sometimes there's a question of nuance rather than absolute, categorical thinking. Part of the obfuscation of the charter is that it applies to Canadian officials and how Canadian officials interact with Canadians, and that impacts on the representation Canada has to make to foreign governments with respect to due process.