Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1997, published 86th ILC session (1998)

Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29) - Saudi Arabia (Ratification: 1978)
Protocol of 2014 to the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 - Saudi Arabia (Ratification: 2021)

The Committee notes the Government's report.

1. Article 25 of the Convention. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to state which national law defines the rights of the person, the violation of which gives rise to legal action in accordance with Article 25 of the Convention. It noted the Government's explanations to the effect that, subjecting an individual to forced labour, contrary to the provisions of the Shari'a, would constitute disobedience which is sanctioned as such and is equivalent to a crime in positive law. Forced labour is a type of constraint which is prohibited and is subject to penalty by the Shari'a; any person subject to it is entitled to take his case before the court and to be compensated for harm done.

The Committee considered that, in certain cases, even though forced or compulsory labour is prohibited in principle, employers could be in a position to exercise excessive control over workers, particularly foreign workers and others, such as agricultural and domestic workers, who are not covered by labour legislation.

The Committee recalled that, in accordance with Article 25 of the Convention, the illegal exaction of forced or compulsory labour shall be punishable as a penal offence, and the penalties imposed by law must be really adequate and strictly enforced. In view of the Government's repeated indications that foreign workers and others, such as agricultural and domestic workers, may take their case to the courts, the Committee requested the Government to indicate the sanctions imposed by law for the imposition of forced or compulsory labour. The Committee also requested the Government to supply information on the legal action taken, the convictions made, and the sanctions imposed as a result of the exaction of forced labour, particularly where the victim was a domestic worker.

In its latest report the Government refers to article 26 of Royal Decree No. 90A of 27.04.1412H, which provides for protection by the State of human rights according to the Islamic Shari'a, and article 48 of the governance system, which requires tribunals to apply the rules of Islamic Shari'a as stipulated in the Koran and by Islamic tradition, and to punish those acts of oppression which could be considered coercion, in order to deter and restrain. Under article 47 of the rules of the governance system, the right to seek legal redress is guaranteed on an equal footing to both nationals and residents of the Kingdom.

The Committee notes the report (19 July 1996) of the United Nations Working Group on Contemporary Forms of Slavery (21st Session), of the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, which refers to information provided by Anti-Slavery International. The report documents information which reveals that, through a combination of circumstances, migrant workers in several Gulf States, including the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, are victims of a modern form of slavery.

The report relates that large numbers of migrant workers are recruited to work in the countries concerned by agencies based in south and south-east Asian countries such as India, the Philippines and Sri Lanka. The agencies conclude individual employment contracts with the workers prior to their departure, who then encounter their first problem when, upon arriving at their destination, they find that a new contract has been imposed with terms involving reduced remuneration and longer stays than originally agreed to.

As set forth in the Working Group's report, subsequently the workers are subjected to conditions which transform their employment into a situation of near slavery. First, the employer, or the employing agency, routinely takes possession of the worker's passport. The justification is that it is for "safekeeping", but the result is that the passport holder can no longer exercise her or his freedom of movement and certainly cannot leave the country or change employers freely. A second common occurrence is the non-remuneration of work, often for months on end. The worker cannot afford to seek other employment without risking the loss of all her or his earnings. These practices effectively turn migrant workers into bonded labourers.

The Committee hopes that the Government will provide detailed information on this matter, including copies of judicial decisions handed down under relevant provisions of the national legislation.

2. Freedom of workers to leave the public service. With reference to its previous request, the Committee noted the Government's statement in its report, covering the period ending 30 June 1993, that section 30/A of public service regulations, adopted under Royal Decree No. 49 of 10/7/1397H, provides that the voluntary resignation of a public servant takes effect upon the acceptance of the resignation by the competent minister, or at the expiry of a period of 90 days from the date the notice of resignation is filed. The minister may postpone acceptance of the resignation in the interest of the public service for a period not to exceed six months from the date of filing of the notice of the resignation. In its latest report the Government states that a copy of the Royal Decree referred to above already had been supplied in 1991 along with the Government's report under Convention No. 100. The Committee notes that this copy is not presently at the disposal of the Office, and it gratefully requests that the Government supply an additional copy.

In relation to the same question, the Committee takes note of article 15 of the New Pension Law of 10/8/1393, under which the period of service for public officials may be extended by Royal Decree. The Committee requests the Government to provide information about the practical application of this provision.