this case from those cases we've stated in numerous cases and here's the quote when this court is interpretive the stare truth that interpretation is considered as part of this there toot unless and until the legislature amends it contrary to that interpretation so if this court believes that our interpretation then an affidavit is required when a petition alleges ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to call a particular witness is that now considered part of the statute if so isn't that the legislature's job rather than urge to amend the stare true if it's just agrees with us to be fair your honor this court has never felt that an af particularly have reliable free trial statements that a witness gave to the police to kill or really is and you but but to the police reported by the police witnessed by the police i think that that word that shows the pretrial statement that should be enough to get past the second stage muster something very clear in the record demonstrating that you know this person would get past i don't think there should be some kind of presumption that no witness wouldn't testify you know which would go based just on chief justice kerman question i mean the effect is maybe that was that we look at it as if it might be the only trial strategy open to the defendant's counsel here i don't think it's you that was the only prostrate he open reasonable certainty and the fact that i think it's worth pointing out that you know mr morrison well let me just put it this way can we take that into account in determining whether it was a reasonable tros through to bring sure got yeah anything that counsel had and affidavits records or other evidence defendants suggests a reasonable certainty rule or there are actually several possible standards groan about it will be resolved on these by case basis which th i want to go back to my first question with a test of your will and i don't think there's any dispute here between you are opposing counsel that i'm affidavit is not required to support every type of post conviction claim that there is but there are here is three quotes from the three cases we're talking about guest must introduce the affidavits from those individuals who would have testif enos to support a claim for fair investigating call witnesses the defendant must introduce affidavit from those individuals who would have testified time pins a claim the trout these are all quotes a plank claim the trial counsel failed to was interpreted in the statute we thought in those cases i mean it doesn't seem like at least those wells can be misinterpreted then it would be up to the legislature if they decided that we've got it wrong with respect to with respect to that particular kind of those issues absolutely well i think your honour's that you know first of all the legislature intentionally made the language pradhan anderson here i understand your point but i think it's important to again emphasize and availability of other and i think that and the idea that we should have some kind of strict affidavit rule ignoring whether supporting documentation actually corroborate claims you know if you're out there may be situations and made lots of situations in which an affidavit from a witness is the absolute only thing that person was and yes as far as the fact that mr north said he said something about you wanting that the person who was going to do that fine or that he wanted his head on a platter i think that to show that he was frustrated some was going to identify and work which would be true whether he did or didn't commit this crime