Is the argument that the blood of the person convicted of adultery is not protected (ghair mahqun) a valid basis for differentiating liability between Qisas and stoning retractions?

Primary text

The argument that the blood of the person executed for adultery is not protected is invalid in this context. The discussion concerns cases where the person has already been killed, meaning there is no remaining blood to be described as protected or unprotected. The existence of testimony does not prevent the obligation of Qisas, similar to a situation where testimony supports Qisas, the execution is carried out, and then the witness admits testifying falsely. Furthermore, differentiating between Qisas and stoning based on the protected status of the executed person's blood is unsound, because the blood is only unprotected relative to the person who carried out the execution. Each individual is held accountable for their own admission, and the statement of their partner is not considered controlling.