ILO-en-strap
NORMLEX
Information System on International Labour Standards
NORMLEX Home > Country profiles >  > Country comments > Texts of comments: Bahrain

Comments adopted by the CEACR: Bahrain

Adopted by the CEACR in 2021

C029 - Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

Articles 1(1), 2(1) and 25 of the Convention. Trafficking in persons. In its previous comments, the Committee requested the Government to provide information on the measures taken by the National Referral Mechanism for Victims of Trafficking in Persons (NRSVT), as well as on the court proceedings initiated in cases of trafficking in persons, both for purposes of sexual and labour exploitation, and the penalties imposed.
The Committee notes the Government’s indication in its report that the implementation of the NRSVT includes four stages, namely: (i) the victim identification stage, during which an individual is classified as a potential victim of trafficking in persons on the basis of preliminary indicators; (ii) the documentation stage, during which the National Referral Mechanism (NRM) team provides emergency services and assistance to the victim, such as shelter and healthcare, which are available at the Migrant Worker Protection Centre, and prepares a case file; (iii) the observation stage , during which, based on the nature of the case and its requirements, it is referred to the competent authorities for appropriate legal measures; and (iv) the protection stage , during which the victims are provided support to recover and enable them to return to their country or re-integrate into employment. The Government indicates that, from 2018 to 2020, more than 600 migrant workers benefited from the NRSVT, including its shelter, health and legal services. The Committee also notes the Government’s information that, between 2017 and 2020, more than 30 persons who were accused of crimes related to trafficking in persons and sexual exploitation were referred to the public prosecution. The competent courts delivered verdicts for around 16 defendants, and handed down prison terms, ranging from ten years to life imprisonment for some, while others received prison sentences ranging from one to five years and fines. Moreover, the competent courts are still hearing a number of cases in this area. The Committee requests the Government to continue its efforts to identify, investigate and prosecute all those who are involved in the trafficking of persons, including trafficking for labour exploitation. It also requests the Government to continue providing information on the court proceedings initiated in cases of trafficking in persons, both for purposes of sexual and labour exploitation, and the penalties imposed as well as information on the number of trafficked persons who have benefited from the NRSVT services.
Articles 1(1) and 2(1). Freedom of career members of the military forces to leave their service. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that although section 60 of the Law No. 32 of 2002 on the Defence Force entitles any officer to leave the service once his/her resignation has been accepted, it does not specify the the due time for the authority to hand down such decision. It therefore requested the Government to provide information on the procedure for the resignation of career members of the military forces, indicating in particular whether the request for resignation can be refused, and the grounds for this refusal.
The Committee notes the Government’s information that the resignation request submitted by a member of the Bahrain Defence Force will not be rejected except in time of war or in an emergency. The official has the right to resign or request retirement in peacetime in accordance with the terms and conditions established by the General Command. The length of time for announcing the acceptance of a resignation varies according to the military rank of the official requesting the resignation.

C029 - Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

The Committee notes the observations of the General Federation of Bahrain Trade Unions (GFBTU) received on 31 August 2021.
Articles 1(1), 2(1) and 25 of the Convention. Vulnerable situation of migrant workers to conditions of forced labour. 1. Migrant workers. In its previous comments, the Committee noted the observations made by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) that the migrant workers’ right to change their employment continued to depend on the approval of the Labour Market Regulatory Authority (LMRA), and that pursuant to the Ministerial Order No. 79 of 16 April 2009 employers shall include in the employment contract a requirement limiting the approval of a transfer to another employer for a specified period. The Committee also noted the Government’s information regarding the introduction of the FLEXI working permit in 2017, which is a renewable two-year permit that allows migrant workers, with either a terminated or expired work permit and who possess a valid passport, to live and work in the country without an employer (sponsor) where he or she can work in any job with any number of employers on a full or part-time basis. It noted that, as a pilot scheme, the FLEXI working permit was a first step that could facilitate the transfer of migrant workers’ services to a new employer, thereby enabling them to freely terminate their employment. The Committee urged the Government to pursue its efforts to ensure that, in practice, migrant workers are not exposed to practices that might increase their vulnerability, in particular, in matters related to passport confiscation as well as to provide information on the application in practice of the FLEXI Working Permit.
The Committee notes the Government’s information in its report that since 2017, more than 27,000 migrant workers have benefitted from the FLEXI Work Permit System and are working in authorized occupations under fixed-term employment contracts. It also takes due note that a Wage Protection System to protect all workers in the private sector, including migrant workers, was introduced through Decree Law No. 59 of 2018 which obligates employers to transfer wages to authenticated bank accounts of the employees on the dates prescribed by law. This system allows the Government’s regulatory and supervisory bodies to monitor remittances via banks and financial establishments. The Government indicates that between 2018 and 2020, the Ministry of Labour and Social Development (MLSD) settled a number of cases and complaints concerning the non-payment of wages to employees. The cases of about 3,000 workers in a major construction company in the country were settled by overseeing the workers’ receipt of wages and dues; by facilitating the return of more than 2,400 workers to their countries; and by transferring the others to jobs in other enterprises. Furthermore, in the context of addressing the adverse effects of the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic of 2020, several significant decisions on the protection of migrant workers were issued, namely: (i) the suspension of monthly employment dues and fees for issuing and renewing work permits; (ii) the extension of the period for irregular migrant labour to regularize their status until the end of 2020; and (iii) the provision of health care services and vaccines free of cost to migrant workers. The Committee also notes that according to the data from the LMRA, around 551,000 work permits were issued for migrant workers between 2018 and 2020, while 407,000 work permits were cancelled as a result of expiration or cancellation by the employer, in addition to procedures for renewing more than one million work permits during the same period. Furthermore, the LMRA carried out more than 199,000 job transfers of migrant workers from one employer to another. Concerning the confiscation of passports by the employer, the Government states that the legislation regulating the employment relationship has no reference to this matter. However, the possession of a passport by any person other than its owner is prohibited under the Criminal Code. Any individual – be that a national or a migrant worker – whose passport is confiscated by any party for whatever reason, has the right to file a complaint at the police station and the courts. In this regard, the relevant courts receive about 150 complaints every year which are settled through enforcement orders requiring the person who has confiscated the passport to return it to its owner. Moreover, the Government indicates that it has made several arrangements with the embassies of labour-sending countries to remove any obstacles in issuing a new passport to the migrant worker and enabling them to benefit from the Flexi Work Permit system. While taking due note of this information, the Committee encourages the Government to continue its efforts to ensure that, in practice, migrant workers are not exposed to practices that might increase their vulnerability, in particular, in matters related to passport confiscation and the non-payment of wages. It further requests the Government to provide statistical information on the number of violations of the working conditions of migrant workers that have been detected and registered by the competent authority, and to indicate the penalties applied for such violations, including those applied for confiscation of passports. Lastly, the Committee requests the Government to continue to provide data on the number of employment transfers that have taken place within the framework of the FLEXI Work Permit System.
2. Migrant domestic workers. The Committee previously noted the statement by the ITUC that there were more than 105,200 domestic workers in Bahrain who were subjected to exclusion from the coverage of a number of labour law provisions, including from weekly rest days or from a limit on working hours. Many of them worked up to 19 hours per day with minimal breaks, and no days off with very little pay and food. Many had reported that they were prevented from leaving their employers’ homes and that the physical abuse and sexual assault of female domestic workers were significant problems in Bahrain. There was also an absence of labour inspection into the working conditions of domestic workers. According to the ITUC, domestic workers were also explicitly excluded from the FLEXI scheme. The Committee also noted an absence of information concerning the cases reported of forced labour of domestic workers.
The Committee notes the Government’s information that the provisions under the Labour Law for the Private Sector No. 36 of 2012, including those concerning the application of the principles of the labour contract, protection of wages, annual leave, working hours, rest periods, end-of-service indemnity and exemption from litigation fees for labour cases, apply to domestic workers. Likewise, Order No. 4 of 2014 on Regulating work permits for domestic workers, stipulates that prior to the granting of a work permit for employing a domestic worker, the employer has to prove that there has not been any record of mistreatment of a domestic worker or failure to fulfill the rights of a domestic worker; or that they have not been found guilty of committing any offence against a domestic worker. In addition, the LMRA has adopted the Tripartite Domestic Contract, a document regulating the relationship between the head of the household, the recruitment office and the domestic worker that stipulates the parties’obligations and the rights established for the domestic worker in the Labour Law for the Private Sector and which is also available in the languages spoken by the migrant domestic workers. Furthermore, according to the Law for Regulating the Labour Market No. 19 of 2006, the migrant worker shall not be charged with any fees by the LMRA or by the recruiting agencies for the issuance of a work permit. Such fees are levied on the employer. In this regard, the Government indicates that no complaints have been received by the LMRA concerning the exaction of recruitment fees from migrant domestic workers. The Committee, however, notes that the United Nations Human Rights Committee, in its concluding observations of November 2018, expressed concern about reports that migrant domestic workers are subjected to abuse and exploitation, including excessive working hours and delayed or non-payment of wages and about the lack of effective remedies for such abuses (CCPR/C/BHR/CO/1, paragraph 47). The Committee requests the Government to continue to take the necessary measures to ensure, in law and in practice, that migrant domestic workers are fully protected from abusive practices and conditions that amount to the exaction of forced labour. In this regard, the Committee requests the Government to take measures to ensure the full and effective application of the Labour law for the Private Sector so that migrant domestic workers fully enjoy their labour rights. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the number and nature of complaints filed by migrant domestic workers and the outcome of such complaints, including the penalties applied. The Committee also requests the Government to take the necessary measures to enable migrant domestic workers to approach the competent authorities and seek redress in the event of a violation of their rights, without fear of retaliation.
The Committee is raising other points in a request addressed directly to the Government.

C105 - Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2021, published 110th ILC session (2022)

Article 1(a) of the Convention. Penal sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for holding or expressing political views, or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that penalties of imprisonment (involving compulsory prison labour pursuant to section 55 of the Penal Code) may be imposed under the following provisions of national legislation in circumstances falling within the scope of the Convention:
  • – Legislative Decree No. 47 of 2002: section 22 – governing the press, printing and publishing: publishing or circulating publications which have not been authorized for circulation; section 68 – harming or criticizing the official religion of the State, its foundations and principles; and criticizing the King or blaming him for any act of the Government.
  • – Act No. 26 of 23 July 2005 on political associations: section 25 – violating any provision of the Act for which no specific penalty is provided for.
  • – Legislative Decree No. 18 of 5 September 1973 governing public assemblies, meetings and processions as amended by Act No. 32 of 2006: section 13 – organization of, or participation in, public meetings, processions, demonstrations and gatherings without notification, or in violation of an order issued against their convening; violating any other provision of the Act.
  • – The Penal Code: section 168 – the dissemination of false reports and statements, as well as the production of publicity seeking to damage public security or cause damage to the public interest; and section 169 - the publication of false reports or forged documents that could undermine the public peace or cause damage to the country’s supreme interest.
The Committee noted with regret that despite the amendments made to the Penal Code in 2015, sections 168 and 169 remained the same. The Government indicated that the abovementioned provisions aim to protect the public order as well as the sovereignty of the State.
The Committee notes the Government’s information in its report that all the above-mentioned provisions provide for imprisonment as one of the penalties for their violation, however there is no reference to the performance of compulsory labour. The provisions under section 168 of the Penal Code refer to damaging the national security and threatening public peace as a criterion for punishment which is excluded from the principles of the Convention. The Government states that according to section 55 of the Penal Code “Every person sentenced to a punishment involving deprivation of liberty, shall perform the labour to which he/she is assigned in prison, in accordance with the Law and with due regard to his/her circumstances, and with the intent of reforming and qualifying him/her for integration into the community.” The Government stresses that the work assigned to prisoners is preliminary to post-prison rehabilitation and training programmes and that it has never been a form of hard labour, revenge, or a means for gain or economic benefit. The Government further refers to the Reform and Rehabilitation Institution Law No. 18 of 2014 which regulates the employment of inmates. The Government therefore considers that the provisions under the abovementioned legislation do not fall within the scope of the Convention. It further states that the court rulings regarding the above-mentioned laws do not include references to forcing the convict to perform a particular job, instead they refer to the type and duration of the penalty and the amount of the fine.
The Committee points out that even though the penalties prescribed for the violation of the above-mentioned provisions do not specifically refer to compulsory labour, they include the sanction of imprisonment which, if imposed, involve an obligation for the prisoner to perform work as per section 55 of the Penal Code. The Committee recalls that the Convention protects persons who hold or express political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system by prohibiting the imposition on them of sanctions of imprisonment, which may involve compulsory labour. The Committee stresses that the purpose of the Convention is to ensure that no form of compulsory labour, including compulsory prison labour exacted from convicted persons, is imposed in the circumstances specified in the Convention, which are closely interlinked with the exercise of civil liberties. The Committee has already stressed that the range of activities which must be protected from punishment involving compulsory labour comprises the freedom to express political or ideological views (which may be exercised orally or through the press and other communications media), as well as various other generally recognized rights, such as the right of association and of assembly, through which citizens seek to secure the dissemination and acceptance of their views. While recognizing that certain limitations may be imposed on these rights and freedoms as normal safeguards for public order to protect society, such limitations must be strictly within the framework of the law (paragraph 302 and 303 of the 2012 General Survey on the fundamental Conventions). The Committee considers that it is not necessary to use prison sentences involving compulsory labour to maintain public order. Nevertheless, the protection provided for by the Convention does not extend to persons who use violence, incite to violence or engage in preparatory acts aimed at violence. In this regard, the Committee notes that the UN Human Rights Committee in its concluding observations of 2018, expressed concern about the serious restrictions imposed on freedom of expression and the large number of arrests and prosecutions of individuals criticizing State authorities or political figures, including through social media (CCPR/C/BHR/CO/1, paragraph 53). The Committee therefore strongly urges the Government to take the necessary measures to amend the above-mentioned provisions, by limiting their scope to acts of violence or incitement to violence, or by replacing sanctions of imprisonment involving compulsory labour with other kinds of sanctions (e.g. fines), in order to ensure that no form of compulsory labour (including compulsory work assigned to a prisoner pursuant to section 55 of the Penal Code, be it for reforming or rehabilitative purposes) may be imposed on persons who, without using or advocating violence, express certain political views or oppositions to the established political, social or economic system. Pending the adoption of such measures, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the application in practice of the abovementioned provisions, including copies of the court decisions, and indicating the prosecutions carried out, the penalties imposed and the grounds for such decision.
Article 1(c) and (d). Punishment for breaches of labour discipline and participation in strikes in the public services. The Committee previously noted that section 293(1) of the Penal Code provides for penalties of imprisonment (which involve compulsory prison labour pursuant to section 55 of the Penal Code) in a situation “when three or more civil servants abandon their work, even in the form of resignation, if they do so by common accord with a view to achieving a common objective”. This provision is also applicable to persons who are not civil servants, but who perform work related to the public service (section 297). According to section 294(1), a punishment of imprisonment may be also inflicted upon a civil servant who relinquishes his office or refuses to discharge any of his official duties with the intent of obstructing the pursuit of business or causes any disruption to the pursuit thereof. The Committee requested the Government to take the necessary measures to bring sections 293(1), 294(1) and 297 of the Penal Code into conformity with the Convention.
The Committee notes the Government’s indication that the penalties under sections 293(1), 294(1) and 297 of the Penal Code were intended to ensure the compliance and smooth functioning of government institutions. The work relationship between the public servant and the government entity is regulated by the Civil Service Law No. 48 of 2010. Any matter concerning the employee’s resignation and the determination of whether such resignation has caused any harm to the institution shall be referred to the judiciary for adjudication. An employee who leaves or is absent from their workplace shall be punished in accordance with the aforementioned rules in the Civil Service Law and its Implementing Regulation, neither of which state that the employee is liable to imprisonment for leaving his/her workplace. The Government further states that no judicial rulings have been issued in accordance with the above-mentioned provisions against a group of public servants for agreeing together to abandon their workplace or refusing to perform their duties, whether by resigning or abstaining from performing their duties.
The Committee recalls that the imposition of sanctions involving compulsory labour as a punishment for breaches of labour discipline or for having peacefully participated in strikes is incompatible with the Convention. It also points out that, sanctions involving compulsory labour for breaches of labour discipline may only be applied if such breaches impair or are likely to endanger the operation of essential services, or in cases of wilful acts which would endanger the safety, health or life of individuals. The Committee observes in this connection that the abovementioned sections of the Penal Code are worded in terms broad enough to lead to the imposition of sanctions of imprisonment, which involve an obligation to perform labour, in situations covered by Article 1(c) and (d) of the Convention.  The Committee therefore once again requests the Government to take the necessary measures to bring sections 293(1), 294(1) and 297 of the Penal Code into conformity with the Convention by ensuring that no sanctions involving compulsory labour may be imposed as a punishment for breaches of labour discipline or for peaceful participation in strikes. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the progress made in this regard.
© Copyright and permissions 1996-2024 International Labour Organization (ILO) | Privacy policy | Disclaimer