Court decisions must be “reasoned” and “documented.” In one side, a “reasoned decision” is that the court’s opinion contains a chain of logical and rational propositions that usually convince the reader or, at least, the reader understands what the reasons that led the judge to that conclusion. On the other side, a “documented decision” is that it is specified on the basis of which Act of parliament it was issued. Meanwhile, in the Iranian Judiciary system, the former Head of the Judiciary issued a directive titled: “Directive for the Firmness of Judicial Decisions”.
In Article 4 we read that: “Judges throughout the country, especially judges of the Supreme Court, while paying attention to the indicators of issuing decisions, shall compose their decisions in a way that will bring about the dynamism of the legal system and influence academic authorities and researchers as a guiding decision.” That is, the issue goes beyond the fact that the decisions must be documented and well-reasoned. This note addresses the issue of why, instead of implementing and enforcing the need for court decisions to be well-reasoned and documented, for which we have already clear legal Acts, we are searching the skies for an idea of firmness decision?