Claiming that it's mixed because there's no such charge is avoiding the question, which is "if a normal person reads this, would he get an accurate impression of what happened?" If someone is convicted of a crime which an ordinary person would look at and say 'that's terrorism', then it's true or mostly true. The fact that there isn't literally a definition of "convicted of terrorism" should at most change "true" into "mostly true".

That's how fact checking sites usually introduce bias--they don't actually lie about literal facts, they just have shifting standards about when things need to be absolutely literally true, when they can give false impressions, and what counts as "mostly" when something is mostly true or false or mixed.