Principles of the Rule of Law, the Factor of Honour, and Pragmatism According to Data from Field Research

2.1 Survey Data

To understand in which respect cases relating to female honour are exempt from the general challenge to clan-based informal justice by norms attributable to rule-of-law principles, survey data targeting these norms are analysed here.1⁹ The questions analysed target the sense of obligation towards clan-based vs.

2.1.1 Affiliation to Clan-Based Customary Justice

To give an impression of the feeling of obligation towards clan-based custom­ary justice as opposed to the formal justice system we analyse the results of the following question:

According to your opinion, which of the following gives you a greater feeling of obligation?

a: A sulh agreement according to clan-based justice

b: The ruling of a formal court

A majority of 52.6% explained that they felt more obliged to a sulh-agreement as opposed to 40.2% who explained that they felt more obliged to a court rul­ing and a minority of 6.3% who explained that they felt obliged by both in the same way. The ratio a/b is with 57.7/35.2 for men significantly higher than the ratio for women with 48.2/44.7, which might be explained by their exclusion from any active role or participation in the system. Also, there are significant regional differences. In large areas the relation of people feeling more obliged by a sulh agreement to people feeling more obliged by a formal court ruling is more than 2/1. In the city of Dura, which has traditionally been the centre of clan-based justice, it 65.2/32.9, and it is as high as 70.4/23.5 in the villages of Yatta, a region with a significant Bedouin population.

The data suggest that clan-based justice has a strong implemental force in the whole southern West Bank, although there are significant variations with respect to region and gender.

2.1.2 Women in Informal Justice

Unlike in other sectors of society including the legal field,^[617] women are still largely excluded from clan-based justice. They neither act as sulh-arbitrators nor do they even speak on their own behalf in official contexts of clan-based reconciliation. Only outside official gatherings may they be asked for their opinion or questioned as witnesses. The limitation of women to being only ob­jects of clan-based justice rather than subjects within it may contribute to the specific perception and handling of cases relating to honour. While in other fields of society the presence of women has become the norm, which has led to a differentiated perception of women in different roles, in clan-based justice the concept of honor is given prerogative in the framing of the role of women. Utmost effort is put into stressing the flawless conduct of the females involved in cases of conflict and even mentioning the name of a girl publicly among the men present can be considered as potentially affecting her honour. Assuming that a role of women as subjects of informal justice might change the handling of cases related to honour, we look at people's estimation of the importance of gender for the suitability of a person to act in re-conciliating people. For a better impression the importance of the factor gender is compared to the importance of the factor high age, which is traditionally regarded as a central quality of a sn∕⅛-arbitrator. As compared to the relevance of a high age, which 33.9% considered as “very important” and another 33.2% considered as “im­portant”, the factor gender was considered as “very important” by a large ma­jority of 61.8% and as “important” by another 15.0%.

This data shows that except for a few Christian-influenced towns, the exclu­sion of women from an active role in clan-based justice remains unchallenged. Since the remaining exclusion of women prevents a challenge to the percep­tion of women by the reality of their involvement, the lack of challenge to the exclusion of women may also indicate that honour remains a consistently weighty factor in cases referring to women.

2.1.3 Acceptance of Methods That Contradict Rule-of-Law Principles, as

Seen in Exemplary Cases

In order to judge whether cases relating to honour are exempt from the chal­lenge which rule-of-law principles make to methods of clan-based justice, we must first look at data that reveal this challenge. It affects some widely ap­plied principles and mechanisms, such as the right to violent retaliation in the form of attacks on family members and their property in cases of man­slaughter and sexual offences, as well as the method of exiling the family of the perpetrator. Subsequently we will examine the survey data on a fictitious case of sexual assault.

Reconciliation for an offense is generally based on the idea that the offense generates a right of retaliation. Reconciliation lets people waive this right in return for compensation, for other conditions they demand or for an apology.

According to your opinion, when does the family have the right to use violence?

- Always when their rights or dignity are attacked

- Only in cases where a family member was killed or wounded

- Always when the state is not able to punish the perpetrator appropriately

- They do not have this right at all - except in immediate self-defence - as only the state has the right to use force

- other: [space for individual answer]^{[619] [620]}

With a total of 22.7%, a minority held the opinion that families do not have the right to use violence at all, while another minority of 19.5% thought that they always had the right when their rights or dignity were attacked. 17.2% limited the right to cases involving the killing or wounding of family members, while a relative majority of 35.6% held that they had the right when the state was not capable of appropriate punishment. A small minority of less than 5% gave alternative answers or combined different points. Accordingly, in total an absolute majority of 58.3% supported in principle the primary responsibility of the state to prosecute (groups c and d). The large size of the group that makes the state's monopoly of violence conditional on its ability to impose an ap­propriate punishment reflects the existing dilemma between the theoretical approval of rule-of law principles and the perception of a conflicting reality of weak state structures?³ It also indicates the pragmatism that guides people in dealing with the existence of parallel justice systems in Palestinian society. Although agreeing in principle with a norm that excludes an alternative, they turn to another concept because they perceive one system as insufficient.

To reconstruct the considerations of people in actual cases, people were asked about their position on typical aspects of clan-based justice in hypo­thetical cases (which are simplified and adapted versions of real, previously studied cases). In the following we analyse answers relating to a case of man­slaughter and set them in relation to those to a case of sexual assault.

The case of manslaughter was described as follows:

Between two neighbouring families there occurred a fight in which a young man of one family stabbed a young man of the other with a knife. The lat­ter was severely hurt and later died in the hospital. The police arrested all the involved persons. During the term of the fawrat ad-damm,^[621] the family of the victim started to burn houses of the family of the perpetrator.

The following questions were asked about debatable methods or options in this case:

- Is it acceptable that the family of the victim burns the houses of the family of the perpetrator?

- Is it right to exile the family of the perpetrator?

- What is your opinion about the fact that the dyya is paid by the perpetra­tor’s family (and not by himself)?

- Is it the right of the family of the victim to kill the young man?

- Should the damages that occurred duringJawrat ad-damm be counted and offset?

To the question of whether it was acceptable that the family of the victim burned the houses of the family of the perpetrator, a minority of 11.7% con­sidered it as “their right during the first three and a third days”, as traditionally considered so in clan-based justice, while 51.7% voted for the option that they had no right to do so. A large minority of 36.4% voted for the option that it was not their right, but a natural reaction in the face of the death of a family member. These numbers confirm the normative change with a large majority rejecting an instrument of collective punishment that has traditionally clearly been considered as part of the rights of the victim’s family. This is confirmed by the answers to the question if these damages should be offset in the final reconciliation, which is often discussed, but in fact not done in clan-based jus­tice. Here a large majority of 70.6 % opted for them to be offset. A closer look at the groups that generally represent positions that are in tension with rule-of- law principles, namely the group that feels more obliged by a su∕⅛-agreement than by a court ruling and the group that opted for the answer that families always had the right to use violence when their rights or their dignity were attacked, reveals that this normative development is inherent to all sectors of society not just people closely affiliated to state-justice: A clear majority of 65.6% of the group feeling more strongly obliged to clan-based justice opted for the offset of damages while a majority of 50.7% did so from the group that believed families always had the right to use violence when their rights or dig­nity were attacked.

The question of whether the close family of the perpetrator should be ex­iled, a common method in cases of manslaughter still today, also reveals the normative challenge by rule-of-law principles, as well as the pragmatic ap­proach of people to such issues: while a minority of 29.9% opted for the ver­sion that the family should be exiled as they bore responsibility for their son, a slightly bigger group of 30.2% opted for the answer that they should not be exiled as they were not responsible for the mistake of their son and a relative majority of 39.6% opted for the rather pragmatic answer that, although they were not responsible, they should be exiled for the protection of civil peace.

Regarding the question of whether the family has the right to kill the perpe­trator, a relative minority of 44.5% opted for the answer that this was (gener­ally) their right, while a relative majority of 48.4% opted for the answer that it was not their right as revenge was unacceptable and only the state had the right and responsibility to punish, while minorities of 4.8% and 2.0% respec­tively opted for the answers that it is their right, if the state's punishment is less then death penalty or lower than a certain number of years in prison specified by the interviewees. In the light of the fact that in clan-based justice in cases of killing it is clearly considered the right of the family of the victim to kill the perpetrator in revenge, often backed by the local interpretation of Islamic law according to which a perpetrator of a deliberate killing should be killed, the fact that almost half of the people asked rejected this norm, may further indi­cate the change towards an increasing consideration of rule-of-law principles. Even from the group that opted for the answer that families always had the right to use violence when their rights or dignity were attacked, a large minor­ity of 38.0% opted for the answer that it was not their right to kill the perpetra­tor, which again indicates that the growing rejection of revenge is not limited to certain groups affiliated to state law. In contrast to the questions regarding burning houses and exile, a far smaller group indicated that they were willing to choose lethal vengeance against the perpetrator over the other normative system if the preferred one failed.

Unlike in the case of collective punishment and, to a lesser degree, revenge, implementing the principle of collective responsibility by distributing the bur­den of paying the d!yya on the whole family is not questioned in a similar way. Asked about their opinion on the fact that the whole family of the perpetrator shared in paying the dlyya, only 7.1% voted for the option that this was un­just as the family was not responsible for the wrongs of their son, while 77.4% explained that it was just as they had a share in the responsibility because they raised their son and 15.1% opted for the answer that it was unjust but an effective means to prevent such crimes in the future. These numbers sug­gest that the increasing consideration of rule-of-law principles does not stem from a vanishing affiliation to the clans or from the renunciation of collective responsibility.

We can conclude that central norms of clan-based justice such as exiling the family of a perpetrator, revenge against the perpetrator of a deliberate kill­ing and the right of the family to attack in the context of fawrat ad-damm, which contradict to principles of the rule of law, are strongly challenged in Palestinian society. This challenge comes from all parts of society including the ones affiliated to informal justice and the ones generally in favour of the right to use violence as means of retaliation. However pragmatic approaches resist this challenge, as indicated by the relatively large groups that agree to the respective methods for practical reasons, although in principle opposing them. Meanwhile neither recourse to clan-based justice as such, nor the clan-system itself and the principle of collective responsibility by clans and families seems to be similarly challenged.

To find out whether the challenge to certain methods of clan-based justice by rule-of-law principles is weaker or even absent in cases relating to honour, we examine the results of the relevant questions about methods in a case of rape.

The case was described as follows:

A young girl informed her family that she was raped by the driver of a public taxi. The driver admitted that there had been a sexual relationship between them but claimed that it was consensual. The family of the girl hesitated to go to the police out of fear that everyone would talk about the case; they consid­ered killing them both. Based on this the family of the young man approached sn∕⅛-arbitrators to solve the problem confidentially. The latter pressured the family of the young man to ask for the hand of the girl in marriage under con­ditions that appeased the family of the girl, such as a high amount of gold and a high dowry.

The following questions were asked regarding controversial methods or op­tions in cases relating to honour:

- Is it right to kill the perpetrator [that the family of the victim kills the perpetrator]?

- Is it right that the family of the girl considers killing her?

- Is it right that the girl is made to marry the young man?

According to several interviews with sul⅛-arbitrators the three options above are the common choices in the case of severe sexual offenses. While until about 20 years ago, families tended to kill both the perpetrator and the victim when such cases became public, today it is more likely that only the perpetra­tor is killed. The most common method, however, is to disguise the crime by having the perpetrator marry the victim.^[626] To seek remedy from formal justice is however not seen as an option as this would expose the case to the public while not providing the restoration of honour.^[627]

In answer to the question about whether it was right to kill the perpetrator, 19.2% opted for the answer that this was the right of the family, while a large majority of 74.7% argued that this was not their right and 5.3% opted for the answer that it was not their right but that there was no alternative choice. The answers may be influenced by the setting of the case in which the marriage so­lution was described as an alternative. However the strong rejection of a com­mon method also indicates an impact of rule-of law norms on its acceptance. The even stronger rejection of the option to kill the girl by 85.9% of the people, in spite of the concept of clan-based justice, according to which killing the girl would cleanse the honour of the family, indicates a normative change towards the consideration of an individual responsibility.

The answers to the question on whether it was right to let the young girl marry the young man reflects the existing normative challenge while explain­ing why this challenge is not translated into outcomes that more strongly con­sider rule-of law-norms. 43.1% voted for the option that it was right to let them marry, while 24.1% explained that it was not and a large minority of 32.0%

explained that it was another injustice/abuse^{[628] [629] [630] against the girl but there was no alternative solution. So while a 56.1% majority either considered the mar­riage solution not to be right or as an injustice/abuse against the girl, at the same time a large majority of a total of 75.1% still agreed to the marriage option.32 Compared to other methods that contradict rule-of-law principles, such as exiling the family of the perpetrator and burning houses, the group that either supports this method without reservation or for pragmatic reasons is even larger. This suggests that cases that relate to honour are affected by the impact of rule-of-law norms, but less so than other cases and are even more subject to pragmatic considerations that might lead to these norms not being reflected in the outcome of the case.}

2.2 Reconstruction and Analysis of Two Cases Concerning Honour as a

Central Concern

For a closer understanding of the weight of the factor honour on the one hand and the impact of normative change towards an increasing recognition of rule- of-law principles on the other, two cases with honour as a central concern are briefly analysed here. The first is a case of sexual assault against a young girl, which after a failed trial according to clan-based justice ended in a lethal act of revenge and a subsequent reconciliation agreement. The second is the case of a takeover of the Facebook account of a young girl by a young man resulting in an ersatz trial, the concealment of the crime and eventual formal forgive­ness. While in both cases the impact of rule-of-law principles can clearly be detected, in both cases the outcome does not reflect these norms.

2.2.1 A Case of Sexual Assault and Attempted Rape

In autumn 2015 a young girl was abducted and sexually assaulted33 by a young man as she was on her way back from a village in the region of Hebron to an Arab town in Israel. When she entered a public taxi the driver and another young man opened a conversation by commenting that she seemed not to be from the area. When she explained that her father was the Shaykh-Xⁱ⁴ from the same village and that she was on her way to her mother's family, the driver^{[631] [632]} tried to build up trust by revealing their family ties, with him being a close relative of her father. As the young men kept talking to her the girl felt increas­ingly uncomfortable and demanded to return to her family. The driver however picked up a brother of the accomplice on the way and drove to a tent in a re­mote area where he asked her to come in for coffee. The girl initially refused to enter but then obeyed out of fear. Later, in the presence of the other two men and the owner of the tent, the taxi driver attacked the young girl, stripped her, touched her in a sexual way and tried to rape her. However she was able to make him stop the assault and drive her to the checkpoint^[633] When she arrived home she called her father to tell him about the assault.

The family of the victim complained to some ynlh-arbitrators of the village. Convinced by the credibility of the report, their initial suggestion was to pres­sure the family of the main perpetrator to ask for the hand of the girl in mar­riage, for which his family was to offer favourable conditions. The girl's father, a pious man and √α^cwα-missionary,3^[634] strongly rejected this proposal as un-Is- lamic and a form of blatant injustice against his daughter. He demanded “the right of the girl” (haqq al-bint) by all legal means, in which he was supported by members of his close family^{[635] [636] The girl's family officially made their claim to the clan-based authorities as well as to local officials. The police arrested the perpetrator and the accomplices in the crime39 and stationed security forc­es at the homes of the people involved. During the following days the family of the girl attacked individuals and property of the family of the perpetrator. Meanwhile snlh-arbitrators, clan-elders and representatives of the town hall made efforts to impose a truce and initiate a reconciliation process.[637] [638] [639] [640] At this juncture the city hall prevented the police from interfering since the arrest of members of the girl's family might have hindered the reconciliation process.}

After some days of riots a large delegation of sul⅛-arbitrators and notables of the village paid the girl’s family a visit at their home to ask for an ^latwa, which included the acknowledgement of responsibility for the crime by the perpetra­tor’s family and the willingness to pay compensation. The conditions of the ^catwa were negotiated between the closest male relatives of the girl, the rep­resentatives of the family of the perpetrator, and the arbitrators present. The terms agreed upon included a truce of one month and the subsequent holding of a manshad, a clan-based tribunal presided over by an informal judge who would pass judgement over the young men and publicly declare the innocence and the undamaged honour of the girl. It was further agreed that the perpetra­tor and accomplices in the crime would be banned from the neighbourhood the family of the girl lived in. During the truce both sides would abstain from any aggressions including slander.

Clashes did not cease and both sides accused each other of breaking the truce. The perpetrator’s family, a wealthy and rather educated family with ex­cellent relations to the judiciary and to the security sector, meanwhile unof­ficially withdrew their confession and started vilifying the family of the girl in different forums by accusing the father of trading with honour (tigarat sharaf41), among other accusations. Although according to clan-based justice, breaking the terms of an ^catwa is considered a severe crime against the respec­tive guarantor, called taqfΓ al-wighf² no new conflict between either of the two sides and the respective guarantors evolved and they continued with the rec­onciliation process. The families agreed on a well-respected and wealthy per­son from a nearby town as manshad43 and that the tribunal would take place in a neighbouring village. Over 1000 men attended the tribunal, most of them elder men representing the families of the area.^[641] After a formal greeting and reference to Islamic traditions that endorse the reconciliation between people, the manshad asked for the guarantors. The mukhtar^{[642] [643] of the clan, which both families belonged to, explained he would be warrant for both sides. The man­shad asked for a description of the case explaining that he would judge based on what he heard. The girl's paternal uncle spoke for the side of the victim's family describing the events, stressing the personal suffering of the girl and the special relationship of trust created by the fact that the perpetrator was driving a public taxi and that he was a relative of the girl's father. Subsequently the mukhtar, who had the right to defend the accomplices in the crime, ex­plained that he would not defend them but leave the ruling in the hands of the manshad. However he suggested taking into account later attacks against his family that happened during the clashes. The manshad rejected this claim and proceeded by announcing and explaining his ruling: The sentence included a compensation the perpetrator and his accomplices were to pay to the family the girl, their banning from the area the girl's family lived in and the cleans­ing of the girl's honour. Resorting to clan-based law and sharfa-law the man­shad specified an amount of compensation for each of the single aspects of the crime. He sentenced the families of the perpetrator and the accomplices to pay the following:}

- 200,000 (JD) for the betrayal of a relationship of trust (amana) created by the fact that the perpetrator was driving a public taxi.

- 50,000 for letting her enter a disrespectable place.

- 180,000 JD for the distance he abducted her, 6 JD4⁶ for each meter with an overall distance of about 30 km.

- 67,500 JD to buy his hand back: according to the manshad, the hand that touched the girl should be cut off. However according to sharfa-law, a hand was attributed to half of the dlyya that was set for murder.

- 150,000 JD for the crime of attacking the girl and trying to rape her.

- 200,000 for aggravating circumstances as the girl belonged to his paternal relatives, whom he was obliged to protect.

- For the crimes of the accomplices, who were also relatives of the girl, he calculated 150,000 as their crimes were considered less grave and they did not touch the girl.

Additionally the manshad announced that the girl had maintained her honour as she had behaved honourably in every respect and the crime had happened against her will. He sentenced the families of the accused to symbolically cleanse the girl's honour (bayad ^cird al-bint) by fully covering her father's home with white cloth. He ruled that the family of the perpetrator would pay a rounded 850.000 JD and the family of the accomplices would pay 150.000 JD to the family of the girl within the following days, stressing that considering the infamy of the crime the amount was not too high. The tribunal was closed by the manshad declaring that he would not take the allowance agreed upon^{[644] [645]} and by another speaker thanking him for his generosity and thanking the peo­ple for their attendance.

The attendants of the tribunal reacted positively. People explained that the amount was high but justified and important for the deterrence and the prevention of similar crimes in the future. Some people explained that finally clan-based justice had given priority to the rights of women and girls and dem­onstrated that no one could harass a female without consequence. In spite of this initial support, the public perception of the case changed, when the family of the perpetrator refused to pay. Although considered as a gesture of disre­spect against the guarantors and against the manshad by clan-based justice, the family's refusal to pay was also perceived as a sign of the family's strength. As clashes continued and the police took strong actions against the girl's family,4⁸ people realised the family's vulnerability and started criticizing their choice of a public tribunal, arguing that they had now ruined their daughter's future, despite having had the chance to solve the case quietly. Some people started questioning the honourable intention of the father, suggesting that he sacri­ficed his daughter's honour in order to become rich. A few months later close family members of the girl expressed regret for their choice. They explained that, whatever they decided to do would be used against them: if they asked for the money, people would accuse them for trading with honour; if they took revenge, people would say they killed for money; and if they forgave, people would consider them weak. Most family members who had initially supported the approach of seeking remedy for the girl by a public tribunal explained they would have opted for a quiet solution or even waived their rights if they had foreseen the social consequences.

The official court considered the ruling of the manshad as a final reconcilia­tion that included the forgiveness from the side of the victim. In the Jordanian penal law of i960, applied in the Palestinian territories until today, there is no formal reference to clan-based justice. However the forgiving (tasamuh) by the injured party allows the dropping of the charges, the release on bail or the sub­stantial reduction of the sentence depending on the crime.^[646] Accordingly, the accomplices were released without charge, while the perpetrator was released on bail after some months. When released, he allegedly entered the area the family of the girl lived in. In response, three of her paternal cousins attacked him and beat him to death.^[647] His family reacted in a calmly, as the killing was perceived as an act of revenge rather than murder and as the young man was considered to have brought shame on the family. The families of the young men who killed the perpetrator sent a delegation of sul⅛-conciliators to his family to negotiate the terms of an atwa. They explained that it was never their intention to kill, but that they only wanted to beat him since he had come close to the girl's father's home, which he was banned from by the agreement. It was agreed on a payment of 70.000 JD retribution to the family of the young man, the usual amount in cases of intentional killing, and to an immediate reconciliation.

Society's reaction to the final outcome was highly affirmative: All people of the village that were interviewed randomly hold the opinion that the killing of the perpetrator was the right of the girl's family. They argued that the family needed to react to the shame, especially since the perpetrator was released and the other family did not respect the judgment of the manshad. Most people were of the opinion that the girl's family had eventually restored their honour by taking revenge. Some of the interviewees found the family of the perpetra­tor responsible for his death as they had refused to pay and exposed him to a very probable revenge. Meanwhile people declared their respect for the per­petrator's family as they accepted the dya and allowed the case to be closed. Several of the interviewees even interpreted the approach of the family of the perpetrator not to pay but to escalate the conflict and to obtain his release as an act of sacrificing their son by exposing him to revenge in order to dimin­ish the claim of the family of the girl and to restore their reputation. They ex­pressed their support for this proceeding, arguing that if a person repeatedly dishonoured the family, one should refuse to pay and leave him to the revenge of the other side.

2.2.2 A Takeover of the Facebook Account of a Young Girl

The second case described here occurred in summer 2015. The owner of an educational centre who belonged to an influential family clan in Hebron dis­covered libelous comments against him and his centre posted via a Facebook account of a young girl. He searched for the family of the girl by the way of her school principal, who cooperated to avoid police involvement that would publicly reveal the girl's name. The owner of the centre approached the fam­ily with the issue. The girl explained that she had no control over her account as it had been hacked and that the posts had not been hers. Subsequently the family of the girl tried to solve the problem, because according to informal justice the case of libel fell into their responsibility and because the takeover of the account of a girl by a young man and the posting in her name was an attack on its own. Since the latter had the potential to affect her reputation regarding her moral conduct, it was considered an attack on her honour and on the honour of her family, besides being an attack on her privacy. The family did not make her responsible in any respect but included her and her interest and opinion in their efforts. Although they thought that such an attack should be prosecuted by formal justice, they did not approach the police as they were afraid that people would talk about the case, which might affect the girl's repu­tation. Hence the family researched on their own: Assisted by family members the girl contacted the perpetrator by the way of her old Facebook account and started a conversation that eventually led him to want to meet her person­ally. Having identified the young man, the girl's brother spotted him out in a supermarket, where he attacked him, dragged him to a separate room, beat him so seriously that the young man needed treatment in a hospital, and took his phone as proof. Subsequently the family of the girl confronted the family of the young man with the case and with the fact that many private pictures of other girls from Hebron were saved on the phone, a matter considered to be an attack on their honour. The accused's family immediately apologised and explained that their son had disgraced them and that his actions were against their values. In doing so, they did not mention the attack on their son in any way. However they asked for the memory card arguing that the data was too sensitive to be kept by anyone. The girl's father at first refused, as he intended to keep the memory card as proof. However as he did not want to be accused of owning inappropriate pictures of girls of other families or even of contributing to their disclosure, he later destroyed the card in front of their eyes. Although the crime against the girl was clearly considered a greater crime than the libel against the owner of the centre, in order not to disclose anything connected to the reputation of the girl, it was decided to only hold a formal atwa relating to the case of libel against the owner of the centre. For this the family of the per­petrator sent a delegation of well-respected elder men, including well known sn∕⅛-arbitrators, to the family of the owner of the educational centre. The gath­ering was held in a ritualised way and included some religious elements and frequent mutual expressions of respect and connectedness. After the father of the owner of the centre described the case with some indirect references to the case of the family of the girl - for example by explaining that the reputation of a young man is not less sensitive than the reputation of a girl - the speaker of the family of the young man stressed the despicableness of the crime and explained that they were ready to pay whatever (compensation) the family of the affected asked. Following long negotiations the families agreed on a pay­ment of 10,000 JD,^[648] but when the money was formally handed over the fam­ily of the owner of the centre explained that they forgave them and that they would not take any compensation. However they threatened the family that if the young man ever repeated such crimes, he would be killed. While the family of the owner of the centre explained that they were content with the outcome, the family of the girl explained that on one hand they were glad that the family of the young man was made responsible, as this might make him think twice before committing such a crime in the future; on the other hand, they com­plained that the way the systems worked precluded any form of punishment, be it financial or in the form of a prison sentence, and hence stripped them and their daughter of their rights. The girl herself explained that she would have preferred a formal prosecution, however she was glad to experience the support of her family as another family would have blamed their daughter in such a case.

2.2.3 Analyses

In both cases described here agents' choices at certain times have been influ­enced by their explicit commitment to some norms that can be attributed to principles of the rule of law. In the case of sexual assault, the rejection of the suggested marriage-solution by the family of the girl with reference to her indi­vidual rights, the initial rejection of killing the perpetrator in revenge and the option for a public trial that included state-persecution can be seen to reflect rule-of-law principles. In the case of the takeover of the Facebook account the girl's family's statement of their principle preference for official prosecution, their refusal to consider the option of a forced marriage as a solution and their choice of granting their daughter an active role in the process by contacting the perpetrator via Facebook to find out his identity reflects an affiliation to rule-of-law principles.

However in both cases, methods and mechanisms attributable to the paramount objective of preserving or restoring the honour of the girl more or less directly prevented these principles being reflected in the outcomes of the cases. In general, agents acted rationally in line with their objectives. This was confirmed by different agents in the interviews, except in the case of the violence during the fawrat ad-damm in the case of sexual assault, which was partly framed as an emotional reaction, and in that of the violence against the perpetrator in the Facebook case, which was framed as the personal re­action of an angry young brother. However, these actions served to demon­strate strength and the willingness to retaliate and were not condemned by any family members. Also the the allocation of roles with young men being responsible for the use of force and the demonstration of the willingness to do so and elder men being responsible for diplomacy is a typical scheme that allows the exertion of pressure during negotiations. So we can assume these actions to be strategical. Meanwhile key choices, namely the suggestion of a marriage solution, the choice in favour of the holding of a manshad and the attack against the perpetrator that resulted in his death in the case of sexual assault, as well as the autonomous persecution of the Facebook perpetrator by the family of the girl and the confiscation of his telephone, were made to achieve the paramount objective of preserving or restoring the honour of the respective girls. Aspects contradicting rule-of-law principles that can be attrib­uted to the respective instruments of informal justice or structures between the legal systems were accepted in consequence, such as the effective denial of defence for the accused in the manshad, the release of the perpetrators based on the ruling of the manshad, the extremely high compensation that would have ruined the family of the perpetrator in the case of sexual assault, as well as, in the Facebook case, ignoring the violence done against the young man by the parties of the atwa and the threat of killing him if he repeated such actions.

While the objective of preserving or restoring the honour of the respective girls and consequently their families' honour proved decisive in the choice of methods, reference to the centrality of the principle of honour in these cases and to their consequent sensitiveness served to justify methods that contra­dicted rule-of-law principles, such as the city hall pressuring the police to re­frain from arresting members of the family of the girl during fawrat ad-damm (a clear breach of state law by an institution of the state system), the general approval of the deadly revenge against the perpetrator in the case of sexual as­sault, and the search for the girl by way of her school.

We can see that the main objectives in these cases that led to or justified methods contradictory to the rule of law are related to the principle of hon­our, namely the preservation or restoration of honour and the preservation or restoration of civil peace threatened by the principle of honour. Regarding the effectiveness of the respective choices, we can say that in both cases the different agents achieved their main objectives and a satisfactory situation. In both cases sn∕⅛-arbitrators were able to re-conciliate and hence restore or pre­serve civil peace, which we can assume to be their main objective. They were also able to present themselves as successful in their role as experts applying clan-based customary justice, as they determined the rituals and the methods. Achieving agreements within the standards of clan-based customary justice regarding the high level of compensation and forgiveness, they were able to demonstrate the effectiveness of the system. In the case of sexual assault, a stable outcome was reached with the family of the girl having been able to restore their honour, while the family of the young man prevented a loss in reputation, proved themselves to be a strong family and profited financially. In the Facebook case, the family of the girl managed to cleanse themselves of the accusation that their daughter had committed an offense, demonstrated that an attack against their daughter would not remain without a reaction and achieved a formal process against the perpetrator within the frame of an atwa. The family of the owner of the centre was also able to demonstrate, that they would not tolerate an offense against them, demonstrated their strength by enforcing a high amount of compensation and increased their status through forgiveness. Meanwhile the family of the young man was able to avoid negative consequences such as formal prosecution and being forced to pay compensa­tion. Hence in both cases informal justice was effective in realizing the main objectives of the involved parties while reaching a stable outcome.

For both cases we can conclude that process and outcome can be explained by objectives of the respective agents and their mostly pragmatic approaches. In this context, the preservation or restoration of honour can be seen as the paramount objective. The approval of methods which contradict rule of-law- principles can largely be attributed to the paramount norm of protecting fam­ily honour and civil peace in the context of honour. The principle of honour has been shown to be so influential that an impact of rule of law norms cannot be perceived in the final outcome of either case. On the contrary, the deadly revenge that is widely approved by the population in the case of sexual assault and the vigilante justice that is not even questioned, in combination with the absence of punishment and formal persecution in the Facebook case, mean that the outcomes of both cases strikingly contradict rule of law principals.

3