Conclusion

Both the survey and the case studies show that rule-of-law principles, such as the principle of the state's responsibility for the prosecution of crimes, the re­jection of vigilante justice and the rejection of collective punishment do have an impact on cases with and without the factor of female honour.

Meanwhile both sets of data, but in particular the case studies, suggest the objective of preserving or restoring family honour as well as the connected objective of preserving civil peace, play a paramount role. This can be seen in the large majority of 75.1% approving a marriage solution in the case of rape while at the same time a large group of this majority considered the solution a form of oppression against the girl, and becomes even more obvious in both case studies, notably with the strong approval of lethal revenge in the one case and the avoidance of any formal process and the unquestioned acceptance of severe violence in revenge in the other. The fact that the paramount necessity to preserve or restore honour was not questioned by either agent but also the absence of any challenge to informal justice by the participation of women suggests that the impact of the honour as a factor is stable.

Finally, regarding the question of the explanatory power of a rationalist ap­proach, the case studies have shown that developments and outcomes in both cases can convincingly be explained by the objectives of the different agents, whereby the factor of honour was the basis of key objectives. The quantita­tive data showing relatively large groups that accept, for pragmatic reasons, methods contradictory to their own moral viewpoint, also verify that legal plu­ralism is handled in a very pragmatic way, rather than in one based on ideology or habitus.