“Regarding the order to stop issuing stoning judgments, the head of the judiciary had recommended this, but in view of the independence of judges it is possible that judges would not follow suit so long as there is no law requiring them to do so,” the spokesperson said.

Iranian women activists have always been seriously demanding the end to the stoning punishment but the Islamic Penal Code that was submitted to the Majlis by the judiciary last year once again confirmed this practice into law.

The only exception in the law to stop the punishment is if Islam’s image is tarnished. Therefore, so long as stoning is not publicized and openly flouted, the image of Islam would not be threatened, thus allowing the practice to continue. The other issue of course is how does one determine whether the image or standing of Islam has been damaged? Is this determination to be made by a judge? Or the heads of the judiciary? But in any case are there real standards to be applied for this test?

In July 2008 ISNA student news agency in Iran published a news report that brought joy to human rights activists in Iran. The big headline of the news agency quoted the spokesperson of the country’s judiciary in that the “implementation of all stoning judgments were to be stopped.”

But despite this announcement, early this year Rooz website announced the stoning of 3 individuals in Mashhad. The news was met with silence from Iranian judiciary officials for two weeks. By the middle of January, the spokesperson of the judiciary confirmed the news and contrary to his earlier declarations said that the execution of the stoning judgment was contrary to the recommendations of the head of the judiciary, but in line with the current laws of the land.

The confirmation of this news indicates that what is certain about the courts is that that there merely follow the written laws and disregard the written recommendations, directives, letters, etc from whatever corner they may come. But the real issue is that why is this law - researched and written by the judiciary - still on paper and has not been rescinded? If judiciary officials believe this is not a good law why do they confirm it only to recommend a difference course of action at the time of implementation?

This duality not only weakens the position of the judiciary and the credibility of its authorities in the eyes of the public but also creates problems for judges who face two conflicting options. If they strictly follow the law they are perceived to be hard-headed and unilateral, while if they follow the recommendations they are perceived to be in contempt.

People want a clear-cut position on this. If the law is shameful and bad, and hurts the dignity of the faith and the country around the world, then remove it. But if this is not the case and the authorities believe in it and in implementing it, then stop issuing these recommendations as they would not stop the implementation of the law. And finally if this is merely a front-window dressing, would it not be better to take the public into trust and speak with them openly?