Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2025, published 114th ILC session (2026)

Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, 1957 (No. 105) - Bahrain (Ratification: 1998)

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. The Committee recalls that it has been referring, for some years, to certain provisions of the national legislation pursuant to which penalties of imprisonment (which involve compulsory prison labour, pursuant to section 55 of the Penal Code) may be imposed in circumstances falling within the scope of Article 1(a) of the Convention. These provisions are:

• sections 168 and 169 of the Penal Code: dissemination of false reports and statements seeking to damage public security, publication of false reports or forged documents undermining public peace or damaging the country’s supreme interest;
• section 13 of Legislative Decree No. 18 of 5 September 1973 (as amended) governing public assemblies, meetings and processions: organization of, or participation in, public meetings, processions, demonstrations and gatherings without notification, or in violation of an order issued against their convening;
• sections 22 and 68 of Legislative Decree No. 47 of 2002 governing the press: publishing or circulating publications which have not been authorized for circulation; 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;
• section 25 of Act No. 26 of 23 July 2005 on political associations: penalty of imprisonment for the violation of any provision of the Act for which no specific penalty is provided for, including such provisions as those regulating the conditions of establishment of an association (including that it shall not be a branch of a political party abroad), the establishment of the rules that regulate the political, organizational, financial and administrative affairs of the association, etc.

The Committee notes the Government’s statement, in its report, that section 55 of the Penal Code is deemed to permit, rather than oblige, the employment of persons sentenced to deprivation of liberty, and that the labour designated for inmates of correctional and rehabilitation centres constitutes post-prison rehabilitation and training programmes. Moreover, the Government indicates that several complaints mechanisms are in place through which inmates are entitled to submit grievances, including the Ombudsman and the National Institute for Human Rights. While these two bodies have received a number of complaints and grievances from inmates of correctional centres, none of the complaints pertained to the performance of work. Finally, the Government states that the provisions to which the Committee refers are not covered by the Convention, as they emanate from legislation that protects society from various criminal acts and have been established in response to situation involving violence or incitement to violence or harm to national security and peace and that, as such, they are not connected to the principles contained in the Convention.

The Committee notes, as it did in previous comments, that the scope of the provisions of the Penal Code referred to above is not limited to violence or incitement to violence, and could permit the punishment of the peaceful expression of non-violent views that are critical of government policy and the established political system, and the punishment of various non-violent actions affecting the constitution or functioning of political associations, or organization of meetings and demonstrations, with penalties involving compulsory labour. The Committee recalls in this regard that provisions banning and prohibiting all type of publications or participation in meetings or political parties advocating views contrary to the political system in place are, by their own wording, clearly contrary to the Convention when they allow for the imposition of sanctions of imprisonment which involve compulsory labour. Moreover, provisions aimed at establishing legitimate restrictions to the right to freedom of expression or assembly, but which are worded in terms broad enough to lend themselves to an interpretation and application that could be incompatible with the Convention, also have a bearing on the application of Article 1(a) of the Convention. This is the case of provisions aimed at protecting public order by prohibiting the publication and dissemination of “fake news” or information that is “likely” to prejudice national interests or disturb the constitutional order, as well as provisions prohibiting acts of subversion or engagement in agitation or propaganda with a view to “weakening” the authority of the State, when enforced with sanctions involving compulsory labour. Finally, while noting the Government’s statement that prison labour is voluntary, the Committee observes that the legal basis for imposing labour on a person sentenced to imprisonment still exists through section 55 of the Penal Code which provides that a person sentenced to deprivation of liberty shall perform the labour to which they are assigned, in compliance with their circumstances and with the intent of reforming them and qualifying them for self-adaptation in the community. In this regard, the Committee recalls that compulsory prison labour, even if designed for rehabilitation purposes, has an impact on the application of the Convention when it is imposed with respect to one of the circumstances covered under Article 1 of the Convention.

In this regard, the Committee recalls that it previously took note of reports of 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. It further notes that in their communication dated 11 July 2024 several United Nations experts, including the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression and the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association, referred to information received regarding the continued arbitrary detention of human rights defenders and opposition leaders for exercising and advocating for the rights to freedom of expression, association and peaceful assembly.

The Committee once again strongly urges the Government to take the necessary measures to review the above-mentioned provisions of the national legislation, so as to ensure that, both in law and in practice, no penalties involving compulsory labour shall be imposed on any person in relation to their peaceful holding or expressing political views or views ideologically opposed to the established political, social or economic system. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any progress made in this regard. Pending the adoption of such measures, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the application of the above-mentioned provisions in practice, including the number of prosecutions brought or court rulings handed down, specifying the penalties imposed and the acts that led to these convictions.

Article 1(c) and (d). Punishment for breaches of labour discipline and participation in strikes in the public services. The Committee recalls that section 293(1) of the Penal Code provides for penalties of imprisonment involving compulsory prison labour 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 any persons who perform work related to the public service (section 297). According to section 294(1), a penalty 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 notes with regret that the Government reiterates its previous assertions, according to which these provisions were adopted to ensure the compliance and smooth operation of government institutions; that the determination of whether an employee’s resignation is intended to harm the government institution is referred to the judiciary and is not an administrative decision; and that resignations in the public sector generally proceed normally, with employees transferring smoothly between the public and private sectors, while complying with conditions and terms set out by the Labour Law for the Private Sector No. 36 of 2012 and the Civil Service Law No. 48 of 2010, neither of which stipulate that employees are liable to imprisonment for leaving their workplace. The Government further reiterates that it has not been privy to any complaints or grievance concerning the suspension or refusal of resignations, nor has it been found that a case of resignation from the public sector has been brought before the courts that could be detrimental to the Government’s entity.

The Committee once again observes that the above-mentioned sections of the Penal Code are worded in terms broad enough to potentially 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 review sections 293(1), 294(1) and 297 of the Penal Code with a view to ensuring that no sanctions involving compulsory labour may be imposed as a punishment for breaches of labour discipline or for peaceful participation in strikes. Pending the adoption of these measures, the Committee requests the Government to provide information on the application in practice of these sections of the Penal Code.