Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 2014, Publication: 103rd ILC session (2014)



A Government representative expressed his disappointment that his country was on the list of the Conference Committee for the second consecutive year, contrary to progress that had been made in law and practice, for which he had expected appreciation after the direct contacts mission visited the country at the beginning of 2014. The observations of the Committee of Experts were a repetition of previous observations, to which the Ministry had replied in detail. The Committee of Experts should have examined the situation in the light of the new regulations, including Order of the Council of Ministers No. 166 of 2000, which abolished the sponsorship system. There was now a contractual relationship between domestic workers and employers which specified the rights and duties of both parties. There were also bilateral agreements signed between the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and some countries of origin, which included the formulation of a certified model labour contract. Recruitment agencies which were found to be in violation of this new regulation were penalized. The Ministry of Labour had adopted an integrated plan defining the rights of both employers and domestic workers. Furthermore, a wage protection programme had been established. A free hotline service had been set up in eight languages to inform foreign workers of their rights and obligations, and so that they could notify infringements. Dispute settlement committees between domestic workers and employers had been set up in the different labour offices across the country. The Ministry was also following up on the implementation of regulations governed the activities of private recruitment agencies. Regarding the transfer of domestic workers from one employer to another, and with respect to termination of service, the context of a highly complex developed labour market which encompassed workers with over 50 nationalities, and varying cultures, should be borne in mind. Many ministerial regulations had been adopted to address the situation. A rectification period was granted by the different ministries to resolve the situation of migrant workers and to facilitate the transfer of workers from one employer to another, and the repatriation of hundreds of thousands of workers. In all cases, legal rules and international conventions were complied with. With respect to the retention of workers’ passports, the practice was prohibited by Decision No. 166 of 2000. The abuse of workers by a few individuals was the exception rather than the rule. Given the increasing numbers of domestic workers, who numbered about 2 million, representing 18 per cent of the foreign workers in the country, the horrendous crimes committed by some domestic workers against the families by whom they were employed should also be taken into account. The regulation referred to above was part of the Labour Code, which did not allow penal sanctions in the case of violations. Forced labour was explicitly prohibited by section 61(a) of the Labour Code, and in the case of violations the employer would be penalized in accordance with Ministerial Council Decision No. 244 of 2009 on the prevention of human trafficking, which was in conformity with international standards on human trafficking. Effective criminal penalties, including imprisonment, were in conformity with Article 25 of the Convention. The regulation prohibited employers from allocating work which jeopardized the health of domestic workers, demeaning work or types of work which were not specified in the labour contract. The Ministry would communicate any information on penalties imposed on employers who subjected foreign workers, including domestic workers, to forced labour. He concluded by reiterating that due account should be taken of the Government’s will to comply fully with its constitutional obligations and its commitment to ensuring decent work for all residents on its territory, in close collaboration with the social partners.

The Employer members noted that this was the seventh time this case had been discussed since 1994 and that it raised issues relating to the labour conditions of domestic workers. The Domestic Workers Convention, 2011 (No. 189), had however not been ratified by Saudi Arabia. A number of concerns had previously been raised by the Committee, in particular the exclusion of domestic workers from the provisions of the Labour Code; the information obtained by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on violence against women in 2009; and the informal sponsorship system, sometimes called kafala, which limited the freedom of movement of migrant workers. However, important changes had been introduced and the Government had made significant progress, as indicated by its statement concerning the increased awareness of the seriousness of the situation of domestic migrant workers. The Council of Ministers had introduced a new regulation by virtue of Order No. 310 of 7 September 2013, which aimed to regulate the relationship between employers and domestic workers in a more equitable manner. A bilateral agreement between Saudi Arabia and Indonesia also provided better protection for hundreds of thousands of Indonesian domestic workers, and was an important step forward towards resolving the many concerns expressed by the Committee of Experts over the years. Some issues however were not addressed by the new regulation, in particular the freedom of movement of migrant workers without the written consent of their employer, and recourse to a competent authority for non-financial complaints. The Government was urged to take additional measures in this respect. This also applied to measures to combat trafficking in persons, in relation to which progress had also been made, in particular through the adoption of Order No. 244 of 2009. This had resulted in better mechanisms for monitoring and enforcement of the anti-trafficking legislation and expanded the protection, rehabilitation and repatriation of victims of trafficking in a coordinated manner by the various public bodies. These efforts were commendable and the Employer members urged the Government to complete the process and to identify and eliminate all cases of forced labour in the country once and for all.

The Worker members emphasized that the Committee of Experts had already raised the issue on several occasions the vulnerability of worker migrants, and in particular of domestic workers, in Saudi Arabia. Those workers were subject to a visa sponsorship system (kafala) and their passports and residence permits were taken away upon arrival in the country. They could not hand in their notice, change employer or leave the country without written authorization from their employer. The system as a whole resulted in those workers being in a situation akin to situation similar to slavery. Domestic workers often found themselves in even more serious situations. The Labour Code did not apply to them. They were sometimes locked up in the house where they worked without being able to make or receive telephone calls, and they were often subject to working conditions that amounted to exploitation. The observation of the Committee of Experts mentioned the adoption of a new regulation which specified the rights and obligations of domestic workers and their employers. The new regulation specified the tasks, the hours of work and rest, the wages and the bodies which could be addressed in the case of non-payment. In return, domestic workers had to respect the teachings of Islam, the rules in place and the culture of Saudi society. They could not refuse work or leave their service without a legitimate reason. Those who violated the provisions would be subject to a fine, be prohibited from working in the country and required to pay the costs of the return journey. The Committee of Experts had identified a series of shortcomings in the regulation. First, domestic workers could still not change jobs or leave the country without the permission of their employer. In this regard, the Committee of Experts had requested information from the Government in 2013 on the application of section 48 of the Labour Code, which provided that an employer may require an apprentice to continue to work after apprenticeship for a period of twice the length of the apprenticeship and at least one year. If the Government had so far replied that no case of apprentices has been brought before the competent courts, it should instead inform the Committee of cases in which apprentices were forced to continue working after their apprenticeships. Whatever the number, the Government could have simply removed section 48 of the Labour Code. Secondly, the regulation had not ended the withholding of passports, or in other words the so-called sponsorship system had not changed. The Government indicated that these practices were informal and not recognized by law. It would be desirable for the Government to indicate the texts which prohibit these practices. Thirdly, domestic workers were not always able to appeal to an independent authority to resolve non-financial issues. Finally, the new regulation still did not establish for criminal penalties and there was still no general prohibition of forced labour in the Labour Code. The new regulation could nevertheless have been welcomed as a first step towards the total abolition of forced labour, had the detention and expedited deportation of thousands of migrant workers from Ethiopia, India, Philippines and Yemen not occurred a few months earlier. This operation contradicted all the efforts and all the measures that the Government has just listed and the Committee had the right to demand explanations from the Government on this issue.

The Employer member of Saudi Arabia expressed support for this fundamental Convention, which ensured the well-being of migrant and domestic workers. Two years ago, she had participated in the adoption of the ILO instruments on domestic work. She emphasized that women, both as employers and workers, had been able to use and help each other to move upward economically beyond the traditional function of caregivers. In this manner, 2 million migrant domestic workers had sent remittances of US$7 billion annually. That did not diminish the need to improve and speed up their protection. Although change had been achieved on paper, more time was needed to achieve progress in practice. The adoption of a new law by the Government in 2013 which criminalized domestic abuse, and other positive public measures were the direct result of action by non-governmental organizations and the media which had pressed for better laws and more effective implementation. These developments demonstrated the substantial progress Saudi Arabia had made in addressing abuses by employers and migrant workers. She called for increased advocacy and awareness of the progress achieved, which would contribute to the development of a protection system for the most vulnerable.

The Worker member of Somalia affirmed that migrant workers and migrant women domestic workers, in particular, remained vulnerable to labour exploitation and abuses by their employers in Saudi Arabia. Migrant workers faced a long list of typical labour abuses which emanated from the sponsorship system governing the employment of foreign nationals. Migrant workers comprised about one third of the population, but were not covered by labour laws and had few or no remedies against labour violations. Moreover, migrant workers who were able to bring their employers to court became embroiled in court cases that could last for years without a positive outcome. From November 2013 onwards, public officials had resumed a campaign which had resulted in the deportation of foreign workers considered to have violated local labour laws. By 21 January 2014, 250,000 foreign workers had been deported. Before deportation, many were held in detention facilities in Riyadh without adequate food or shelter. In March 2014, one person had died and nine workers had been injured as a result of police action in a detention centre. More than 12,000 people had been deported to Somalia since January 2014. The crackdown on undocumented foreign workers had resulted in the acceptance of lower wages by other foreign workers. He alleged that in this manner local businesses had saved 15 billion Saudi riyals (SAR), and that wages stood at one fifth compared to pre-crackdown levels. It was therefore necessary for the justice system in the country to be reformed and for national labour laws to be brought into conformity with international standards to guarantee the adequate protection of migrant workers against abuses by employers and the State.

The Government member of Switzerland said that his Government was very preoccupied about the working and living condition of migrant workers. The sponsorship system, with the restrictions that it imposed on personal freedom, was a real problem that gave rise to situations that were tantamount to slavery. Those restrictions seemed to go hand in hand with major restrictions on the right of appeal to the courts, which exposed workers to serious abuse, including physical and sexual violence. The existence of regulations governing domestic work might be beneficial, but the September 2013 Order did not guarantee acceptable working conditions for migrant domestic workers. The Government therefore needed to take steps to protect migrant domestic workers employed under abusive working conditions and excessive restrictions on the exercise of their fundamental rights and liberties.

The Worker member of Nepal expressed concern at the working conditions of the around half a million Nepalese workers in the country. While migration created employment, it should not be forgotten that Government policies should be aimed at creating a decent working environment. Due to poor working and living conditions, as well as the sponsorship system (kafala), the mortality rate of migrant workers was increasing. Since 2000, around 7,500 Nepalese migrant workers between 20 and 40 years of age had died due to industrial and road accidents, suicides and “heart attack” due to long working hours and the lack of rest. The Government claimed that the majority of these deaths were due to natural causes. However, when the underlying causes of this high death rate were examined the increase was due to the forced labour practices that existed in the country. Under the sponsorship system, without the permission of the employer, workers could neither change employment nor return to their own country, even if they were not able to perform the work. When examining the sponsorship system in the light of Article 2 of the Convention, the only option for foreign workers appeared to be to work with the same employer, even if they did not wish to do so. Due to this system, workers committed suicide and could be easily exploited by employers. Workers were hired to work for more than 12 hours without drinking water at construction sites and with long exposure to heat and the sun. These were not natural deaths, but the result of slavery conditions that existed in the country, and he urged the Government to abolish the so-called kafala system and to respect and enforce the Convention.

The Government member of Egypt referred to the definition of the term “forced labour” contained in the Convention. Both forced labour and slavery were banned. There were about 2 million foreign workers in the country and measures were being taken to address the situation of domestic workers. Not all problems had been resolved and problems existed at the individual level, but measures were being taken, such as the introduction of penalties against employers who had confiscated the passports of domestic workers, and the establishment of a hotline. These initiatives illustrated the Government’s satisfactory response.

An observer representing the International Domestic Workers Federation (IDWF) said that it was necessary to combat violence against domestic workers in Saudi Arabia. Domestic workers there were trapped under the kafala system, which prevented them from leaving their employment, even if they were abused. Many domestic workers in Saudi Arabia worked for 90 hours a week or more, lacked adequate food and were not entitled to overtime pay or compensation in the case of work-related injuries. Common complaints included unpaid wages, employers withholding passports to prevent them from leaving and confinement to the house. Living in employers’ houses made domestic workers extremely isolated, and vulnerable to exploitation and abuse. According to a non-governmental organization (NGO), between 30 and 50 maids a day reported abuse and exploitation at the centre for housemaid affairs in Riyadh. Domestic workers who dared to submit official complaints for mistreatment ran the risk of their employers filing counter claims of witchcraft or adultery, which were severely punished in Saudi Arabia. Forty Indonesian domestic workers convicted of witchcraft, sorcery or murdering their employers currently faced potential death sentences, but an Indonesian NGO following their cases reported that most of them had acted in self-defence against physical or sexual abuse. A 2013 decree entitled domestic workers to nine hours of rest a day – but they could still be made to work for the remaining 15. The current proposed unified contract for domestic workers, while an improvement on the 2012 version, continued to lack enforcement mechanisms and was not fully in line with Convention No. 189, which needed to be implemented to free all domestic workers from slavery.

The Government member of the Russian Federation said that the Committee of Experts had rightly expressed its concern with regard to the working conditions of migrant workers in Saudi Arabia, whose rights were limited. They could not change employers, leave the country or terminate their employment contract. However, he welcomed the measures adopted recently by the Government, such as a regulation that set out the rights and obligations of employers and workers (including domestic workers) and measures to strengthen the duties of employers’. It was essential to combat the non-payment of wages and to implement the necessary conditions to ensure that migrant workers could assert their rights. The Government, which was on the right path, needed to pursue its efforts and continue to provide information on the application of the Convention.

The Worker member of Bahrain emphasized that there was no ideal State and that every country had positive and negative sides. He expressed surprise that Saudi Arabia was on the list before the Conference Committee for the second consecutive year, despite the numerous achievements made with respect to the formulation of laws in a country which provided more than 2 million job opportunities for migrant workers at a time of unemployment in many countries. He believed that the initiatives taken by Saudi Arabia for the protection of foreign workers, such as stopping the retention of workers’ passports and granting rectification delays for undocumented workers, needed to be acknowledged by the Committee. He also recalled the information provided by the Government representative with respect to the establishment of a free hotline service in eight languages to inform migrant workers of their rights and obligations and to report infringements. He also emphasized the importance of the requirement of certified employment contracts between workers and employers, which specified the rights and obligations of each party and granted the right to workers to institute legal proceedings against employers considered to be in violation of contracts.

The Government member of Lebanon acknowledged the Government of Saudi Arabia’s commitment to complying with Convention No. 29, reforming the kafala system and giving effect to the principles of Convention No. 189. In his view, the Saudi Government was doing all it could and its efforts deserved the Committee’s support. There were many Lebanese migrant workers currently working in Saudi Arabia, and the only criticism his Government was aware of related to the high summer temperatures. Change needed to be progressive, otherwise it would meet with resistance and negative reactions. Furthermore, it should not be forgotten that Islamic radicalism sometimes led to heightened concerns for governments, which resulted in the adoption of harsh security measures. The Committee should not focus on a few unrepresentative cases that did not correspond to the reality on the ground.

The Government representative thanked the previous speakers for their support and constructive criticism, and said that the Government would pursue its efforts. Its aims were to continue developing and regulating the Saudi labour market, which was stable and provided numerous employment opportunities and a working environment exempt from discrimination, and to provide all workers with decent working conditions. The Government had been working with an international consultancy firm, from which it had ordered a labour market survey. This survey had taken into consideration more than 35 institutions and identified the major problems encountered by foreign workers throughout their journey from their country of origin to their country of destination, and upon their return. A number of initiatives had already been taken, such as the e-registration of labour contracts and the signing of bilateral agreements with countries of origin, which clearly set out the rights and obligations of each party. Many cooperation projects were under way with the ILO, including a labour inspection evaluation project and a project to strengthen national capacities; and a training agreement would be signed in the near future. The Government was also cooperating with the International Labour Standards Department following the recent visit of a direct contacts mission to the country. He reiterated the Government’s commitment to pursuing its cooperation with the ILO to deal with the challenges ahead, while taking into account the characteristics of the national labour market.

The Employer members, while acknowledging the serious circumstances that had ultimately brought this case before the Committee, believed that sometimes incidents needed to be put into perspective. Given the high number of domestic workers in Saudi Arabia (2 million), it was not surprising to observe that occasionally terrible incidents occurred, and there were not only cases of employers treating their employees badly, but also instances in which domestic workers committed terrible crimes against their employers or their employers’ families. The Committee should not become so attached to those exceptional incidents as to lose sight of the whole picture. The concerns relating to aspects of the migrant work system in Saudi Arabia had been acknowledged by the Government. Regulations had been, and were being put in place, activities were being undertaken on the ground, and bilateral relationships had been established, for instance with Indonesia and several other countries. The Government had started to tackle a very difficult problem, and it would take years to resolve it. Changing rules was easier than changing a culture and the informal but prevalent kafala system was a cultural phenomenon. Although aware of the difficulties encountered by the Government, the Employer members indicated that the prosecution of wrongdoers would send the right message, and the ability of migrant workers to report infringements, as well as the requirement to pay wages and grant holidays, would eventually help. All these measures would impact on practical everyday realities, thus contributing to a more open, transparent, fair and decent domestic work culture. They acknowledged that Saudi Arabia was working towards the common goal of the non-existence of forced labour. The Government should be commended for its efforts, but strongly encouraged to continue in the right direction.

The Worker members emphasized that giving work to women from the Philippines and other distant countries was not a favour bestowed upon them. It involved showing respect to these workers because they provided benefits to their employers. For many years, the migrant workers in Saudi Arabia, and especially domestic workers, had found themselves in conditions similar to slavery because of the system of sponsorship. Their passports were confiscated, they could not change their employer or leave the country without their employer’s authorization, and they had no possibility of exercising their rights or of obtaining compensation for the abuse they had suffered. Furthermore, the Labour Code did not apply to them. In 2013, following the examination by the Committee of the application of Convention No. 111 by Saudi Arabia, the Government had undertaken to speed up the adoption of legal texts, in particular those pertaining to the working conditions of domestic workers. New regulations had in fact been approved on the rights and obligations of these workers and their employers. However, they only covered working conditions (duties, wages, working hours and time of rest), and did not cover the issue of sponsorship. All provisions which allowed forced labour by migrant workers should be immediately repealed. The Worker members called upon the Government to introduce a ban on forced labour into the Labour Code and to include penalties in the new regulations. They also reiterated the request they had made in 2013 for a direct contacts mission to gather information on the situation in the field and improve the application of Convention No. 29, and called for the submission of a detailed report on the application of the Convention for examination by the Committee of Experts at its next meeting.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2019, published 109th ILC session (2021)

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2016, published 106th ILC session (2017)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2016, published 106th ILC session (2017)

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2014, published 104th ILC session (2015)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2014, published 104th ILC session (2015)

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2013, published 103rd ILC session (2014)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2013, published 103rd ILC session (2014)

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2012, published 102nd ILC session (2013)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2012, published 102nd ILC session (2013)

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2009, published 99th ILC session (2010)

The Committee notes that under section 48 of the Labour Code, which regulates the termination of training or qualification contracts, an employer may require a trainee to work for him or her upon completion of the training period for a period not to exceed twice the duration of that period or one year, whichever is longer. The Committee requests the Government to provide in its next report, information about the application of this section in practice, including information about the number of cases of trainees being required to work after completion of their training period and the actual duration of the periods of post-training work in such cases.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2009, published 99th ILC session (2010)

Article 25 of the Convention. Penalties for the illegal exaction of forced or compulsory labour. In its previous comments, the Committee has expressed its concern about the application of Article 25 of the Convention, which requires that the illegal exaction of forced or compulsory labour be punished with penal sanctions, and that these sanctions be really adequate and strictly enforced. The Committee notes that the Government refers in this connection to section 61 of the Labour Code, which prohibits employers from using workers to exact labour without the payment of wages. The Committee observes, however, that section 61 does not contain a general prohibition of forced labour but merely lays down an obligation to remunerate the performance of work within the framework of a normal employment relationship. While relevant to the protection of normal conditions of employment, it is insufficient for purposes of the Convention. Furthermore, section 239 provides for penalties that are limited to monetary fines and, therefore, does not meet the requirements of Article 25.

The Committee hopes that the Government will take steps to adopt a provision which prohibits the exaction of forced labour more generally, so as to cover all situations of the illegal exaction of forced or compulsory labour, including the situations which do not relate to the normal employment relationship, and to make violations punishable with penal sanctions, which should be really adequate and strictly enforced, as required by Article 25 of the Convention.

Articles 1 (paragraph 1), 2 (paragraph 1), and 25. Trafficking in persons. The Committee notes with interest the promulgation by the Council of Ministers of Order No. 244 of 20/7/1430 H (2009) prohibiting trafficking in persons, which was communicated by the Government with its report. The Committee notes that this law prohibits all forms of trafficking in persons, including trafficking that involves the imposition of forced labour and slavery-like practices (section 2), and that it provides for criminal penalties including a sentence of imprisonment of up to fifteen years and/or a fine of one million Rials (section 3).

The Committee hopes that the Government will provide information on the application of this legislation in practice, including information about all cases in which perpetrators have been prosecuted, convicted and sentenced. Please also provide information on the various measures taken to combat trafficking, including measures of prevention and victim protection, as well as information on the work of any special bodies established to coordinate the implementation of such measures.

Articles 1 (paragraph 1) and 2 (paragraph 1). Vulnerable situation of migrant workers with regard to the illegal exaction of forced labour. The Committee previously referred to the vulnerable situation of migrant workers, particularly migrant domestic workers, who are often confronted with employment policies such as the visa “sponsorship” system and subjected to abusive employer practices, such as retention of passports, non-payment of wages, deprivation of liberty, and physical and sexual abuse, which cause their employment to be transformed into situations that could amount to forced labour. The Committee previously noted Council of Ministers Decision No. 166 of 12/7/1421 AH (2000) regulating relations between migrant workers and their employers, which stipulates, inter alia, that employers shall not retain the passports of migrant workers or the passports of members of their families, and which provides for the establishment of a special committee to resolve any problems arising from its application. However, the Committee notes the indications of the Government in its report that lawsuits brought in disputes arising under this regulation do not terminate within reasonable deadlines, and that there are no data as to any cases in which the penalties provided therein have been applied. The Committee also notes that section 7 of the Labour Code provides for regulations to be promulgated that pertain specifically to the employment conditions of migrant domestic workers.

The Committee hopes that the Government will take steps to promulgate new regulations under section 7 of the Labour Code, and that they will provide for a protective framework of employment relations that is specially tailored to the difficult circumstances faced by migrant domestic workers and in particular to the problems caused by the visa sponsorship system, and will ensure that domestic workers are fully protected from abusive practices and conditions that amount to the exaction of forced labour. The Committee hopes that in its next report the Government will be able to provide information to this effect and to supply the text of the regulations, once adopted.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2007, published 97th ILC session (2008)

Article 25 of the Convention. Penalties for the illegal exaction of forced or compulsory labour. The Committee for many years has expressed its concern about the failure of the Government to comply with Article 25 of the Convention, particularly in light of the special problems faced by migrant workers in Saudi Arabia. The Committee has previously indicated that Article 25 of the Convention requires a member State to have specific provisions punishing the illegal exaction of forced or compulsory labour with penal sanctions. The Committee expressed its hope that measures would soon be taken to introduce such provisions, and that the penalties imposed by law would be really adequate and strictly enforced, as required by the Convention. The Committee notes that in its 2005 report the Government indicated that the new Labour Code would include a text on the prohibition of forced labour and the penalties for its exaction.

The Committee notes the new Labour Code supplied by the Government with its 2007 report. It notes with regret, however, that the Code contains no prohibition on forced labour and no penalties, and that in section 7 it continues to exclude agricultural workers and domestic workers, an exclusion that has particular significance for migrant workers who are often employed in those sectors. The Committee notes, as it has previously, that the lack of such protection for migrant workers exposes them to exploitation in their working conditions, such as retention of their passports by their employers, which in turn deprives them of their freedom of movement to leave the country or change their employment. The Committee asks that in its next report the Government inform it about the measures it is taking to amend the Labour Code to provide for the prohibition of forced and compulsory labour, for penalties for the illegal exaction of forced or compulsory labour, and for such penalties to be adequate and strictly enforceable, as well as measures that encompass migrant workers, with a view to protecting them from being exposed to situations in which they are vulnerable to exploitation of that nature.

Articles 1(1) and 2(1). Vulnerable situation of migrant workers with regard to the illegal exaction of forced labour. The Committee previously noted the adoption, through Decision No. 166 of 12 July 2000 of the Council of Ministers, of “Regulations governing the relationship between employers and migrant workers”, and that according to section 3 of those regulations, “migrant workers may keep their passports or the passports of members of their families and may be authorized to move within the Kingdom as long as they have a valid residence permit”. The Committee has also noted that section 6 provides for the creation of a rapid mechanism for the examination of conflicts which may arise and for their settlement by the competent authority. In its previous observation the Committee expressed the hope that the Government would provide full information on the dispute-settlement mechanism under section 6 of Order No. 166, as well as on the sanctions that may be imposed on an employer for non-observance of those regulations. With regard to the dispute-settlement mechanism under section 6, the Government, in its 2005 report, stated only that the departments at labour offices dealing with such issues undertake to resolve disputes expeditiously, and that delays and backlogs were problems common to labour judiciaries, but the Government had this problem under examination. The Committee hopes that the Government will report on the measures it has taken to establish and bring into operation the rapid dispute settlement mechanism, as prescribed under section 6 of Order No. 166.

The Committee notes that in its 2005 report the Government indicated that the sanctions prescribed under section 6 of Order No. 166 for non-observance of the regulations include terminating the labour relationships and prohibiting an employer from contracting for the employment of migrant workers. The Committee hopes that in its next report the Government will include information about the number of cases and the circumstances in which those sanctions have been imposed to date, as well as information about whether there are any other penalties prescribed by law for violations of the regulations under Order No. 166 and, if so, about the imposition of any such penalties. The Committee hopes that the Government will also explain how it is ensured that the application of sanctions prescribed under section 6 does not adversely affect the workers involved by causing them to be placed in precarious situations that may subject them to further exploitation through the illegal exaction of forced or compulsory labour.

The Committee notes Circular No. 55 of 10 March 2001, which, according to  the Government’s statement in its 2005 report, provides for an employee’s transfer to another employer in cases where long delays in existing dispute-resolution procedures cause economic hardship for the migrant worker involved in the pending dispute. The Committee hopes that the Government will provide information relating to the application in practice of this measure, including the number of cases in which it has been applied.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2003, published 92nd ILC session (2004)

The Committee has noted the Government’s reply to its earlier comments.

Article 25 of the Convention. Penalties. For many years, the Committee has been raising its concern about the failure of the Government to comply with Article 25 of the Convention, which requires that illegal exaction of forced labour shall be punishable as a penal offence. The Government has consistently maintained that forced or compulsory labour would be regarded as a constraint or oppression under the Shari’a and that, if a case was brought to a tribunal, the judge in applying the Shari’a may subject the offender to penalties in the way of fines, jail or other sanctions at the discretion of the judge. In its latest report, the Government reiterates that the exaction of forced labour is punishable as a sin, and that penalties specified by law vary according to the type of sin committed. The Government also indicates that it is currently examining a new draft Labour Code, which has been submitted to the ILO for comments.

The Committee has previously indicated that Article 25 of the Convention requires a member State to have a specific law which describes both the exaction of the forced labour and the penalty. The broad discretionary application of the Shari’a does not fulfil the requirements or purpose of the Article. The Committee hopes that measures will soon be taken in secular law, e.g. by way of the new Labour Code, to introduce provisions punishing the illegal exaction of forced or compulsory labour as a penal offence, and that the penalties imposed by law will be really adequate and strictly enforced, as required by the Convention. It requests the Government to supply a copy of the new Labour Code, as soon as it is adopted.

Migrant workers

In its earlier comments, the Committee has raised the problem of migrant workers, and in particular agricultural and domestic workers who are not covered by the present Labour Code. The lack of protection for such migrant workers exposes them to exploitation in their working conditions, such as retention of their passports by their employers, which deprives them of their freedom to leave the country or change their employment. This problem is linked to the Committee’s comments in regard to the absence of a penalty provision, as described above.

The Committee has previously noted the adoption, by Decision No. 166 of 12 July 2000 of the Council of Ministers, of the Regulation governing the relationship between employers and migrant workers. It noted that, according to section 3 of the Regulation, "migrant workers may keep their passports or the passports of members of their families and may be authorized to move within the Kingdom as long as they have a valid residence permit". The Committee also noted the provision of section 6 concerning the creation of a rapid mechanism for the examination of conflicts which may arise and for their settlement by the competent authority. It asked the Government to provide details regarding the sanctions which may be imposed in case of non-observance of the provisions of the above Regulation and to communicate further information on the dispute settlement mechanism provided for in section 6.

The Government indicates in its report that the appropriate mechanism has not yet been decided upon, but is currently under examination by the competent authorities. It also indicates that there are special committees which settle labour conflicts within labour offices established everywhere in the Kingdom, to which both employers and workers may submit their complaints without any conditions or restrictions. While noting these indications, the Committee hopes that the Government will provide full information on the dispute settlement mechanism under section 6 of the Regulation referred to above, as soon as it is decided upon and put into operation, as well as on the sanctions which may be imposed for non-observance of the Regulation.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2000, published 89th ILC session (2001)

The Committee notes the recent Government report and response received respectively on 31 July 2000 and 6 November 2000.

Article 25 of the Convention

Penalties

1.  The Committee for some ten years has raised its concern about the failure of the Government to comply with Article 25 of the Convention, which requires that illegal exaction of forced labour shall be punishable as a penal offence. This comment has been made in respect of special problems involving migrant workers as discussed hereunder. The Government has consistently maintained that forced or compulsory labour would be regarded as a constraint or oppression under the Shari’a and that, if a case was brought to a tribunal, the judge in applying the Shari’a may subject the offender to penalties in the way of fines, jail or other sanctions at the discretion of the judge. In its reports, the Government maintains that this is sufficient to comply with the Convention as the secular law is thereby in conformity with the Convention.

2.  The Committee yet again indicates that the absence of a secular law, such as a code, which specifically provides for punishment of forced labour as a penal offence means that the provisions of the Convention are not fulfilled. Article 25 requires that a member State have a specific law which both describes the exaction of forced labour which is forbidden and also prescribes a penalty for its exaction. The broad and non-specific application of the Shari’a, coupled with a possible judicial sanction at the broad and unlimited discretion of the judge, does not fulfil the requirements and purpose of the Article. The purpose of Article 25 is to act overtly as a preventative measure and also as a punitive measure which is known and can be implemented.

3.  The Committee therefore again requests that the Government take measures in secular law, for example by way of a code, to provide for penal sanctions for the imposition of forced labour in order to ensure compliance with the Convention. In addition, to the extent that the Government indicates that such matters may be raised in a tribunal, the Committee asks the Government to provide details of any cases in which a tribunal has found a person responsible for forced labour, including any sanctions imposed by a judge, and also to transmit copies of such decisions.

  Migrant workers

4.  The Committee has raised for some years the problem of migrant workers and in particular agricultural and domestic workers. As indicated above, this problem is linked to the points made by the Committee in respect of the absence of a penalty provision as described above. The Committee has previously noted that the Labour Code does not extend to agricultural workers and domestic workers, which has particular significance for migrants who often work in those jobs. The lack of protection for such migrant workers exposes them to exploitation in their working conditions, such as retention of their passports by their employers which in turn deprives them of their freedom of movement to leave the country or change their employment.

5.  The Committee has previously noted that, according to information submitted by Anti-Slavery International to the United Nations Working Group on Contemporary Forms of Slavery, it was a common practice by employers to retain the passports of domestic workers in particular, and that such workers had to continue in the service of the employer, sometimes without remuneration, with excessive hours and occasionally subject to physical mistreatment or, for women, even sexual abuse. The Government indicated in an earlier report that it strongly refuted these allegations as going "beyond logic and reality". The Committee takes note of comments recently communicated by the International Confederation of Arab Trade Unions (ICATU) of 15 May 2000, in which reference is made again to the practice of retaining passports of migrant workers by employers which still continues. The Government in its response of 6 November 2000 indicates that, as the result of the previous comments made by the Committee on this topic, it adopted, through Decision No. 166 of 12 July 2000 of the Council of Ministers, a "Regulation governing the relationship between employers and migrant workers". The Committee notes with interest that according to section 3 of the Regulation, "migrant workers may keep their passports or the passports of members of their families and may be authorized to move within the Kingdom as long as they have a valid residence permit". The Committee also notes that section 6 provides for the creation of a rapid mechanism for the examination of conflicts which may arise and for their settlement by the competent authority.

6.  The Committee also takes note of the decision of the Government of Indonesia of January 1999 to suspend the migration of workers to Saudi Arabia which was linked to the number of reported cases of torture, rape, non-payment of wages and deprivation of liberty of Indonesian workers in Saudi Arabia.

7.  In a summary on the point, the Committee hopes that the Government will provide details regarding the sanctions which may be imposed in case of non-observance of the provisions of the Regulation governing the relationship between employers and migrant workers, and that it will communicate further information on the dispute settlement mechanism which is provided for in section 6 of the Regulation.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1998, published 87th ILC session (1999)

The Committee notes the Government's reports.

I. Article 25 of the Convention

1. Further to its previous comments, the Committee notes the Government's statement that illegal exaction of forced or compulsory labour is prohibited and punishable as a penal offence whether a worker is an agricultural or domestic one or pertaining to any other category. It further notes that cases can be brought to court free of charge and that any person who commits such an offence is punished by way of "ta'zir", which is a legal punishment of every offence for which there is no expiation and no determined punishment. The sanction may vary according to the type of offence at the discretion of the judge; it may be a fine, imprisonment or any other sanction. The Government indicates that no cases have yet been brought and that, if there is a particular case, it will inform the Committee of the practical application.

2. The Committee notes the explanations in the Government's report. It also takes due note of the Government's statement that the principle laid down by this Convention is agreed upon and that there is no controversy over the fact that illegal exaction of forced or compulsory labour is prohibited and punishable as an offence whether a worker is an agricultural or domestic one or pertaining to any other category. It observes however that the illegal exaction of forced or compulsory labour does not seem to be punishable as a penal offence under secular law and that secular law does not seem to impose a penal sanction in such cases. The Committee therefore invites the Government to take the necessary measures to include in its secular law a provision to ensure the full implementation of Article 25 of the Convention. The Committee asks the Government to indicate in its next report what measures have been taken to that effect.

3. In its previous comments, the Committee had referred to the situation of migrant workers. Available information indicated that these workers might be subjected to conditions of work (such as retention of passport, non-payment of wages, substitution of contracts, etc.) which might transform their employment into a situation of near slavery and which might come under this Convention. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government. It notes that the Government's report refers to the Labour Code, which has imposed upon the employer many obligations such as to treat workers with respect and decency and to refrain from any word or deed that might affect the dignity of the worker. The Code provides for sanctions in case of violation of this rule. Any violations, according to the Government, are confined to individual cases and are not a general phenomenon. The worker who is subject to such a practice can always resort to the competent labour offices which are established everywhere in the regions and cities of the Kingdom, and to settlement procedures which are simplified and free of charge. The Committee asks the Government to give information on the official practice in the matter. For example, how are the workers concerned informed on their rights, particularly as regards the possibility to resort to labour offices, and the number of cases examined as well as examples of settlements.

4. The Committee notes the detailed information in the Government's report. It observes however that the Labour Code provides protection for workers covered by the Labour Code, but the Code does not cover agricultural and domestic workers, of which, according to information from a number of sources, many are foreign migrant workers. It would appear then that a significant proportion of workers might thus be deprived of the general system of protection provided under the Labour Code.

5. The Committee recalls that, in its General Report in 1995 (paragraph 59) it had drawn the attention of governments to the specific situation of a large group of migrants for employment, namely migrant domestic workers. The vulnerability of these workers, who are in their great majority women and young persons, arises principally out of two aspects of their work, first that they are employed in domestic work, for which only a very minimal protection is set out in labour legislation, and second that by working abroad they are outside the direct legal protection provided by their country of origin. The inherent difficulty of the situation of migrant workers is magnified by the absence of autonomy of domestic workers in respect of their employers. The Committee also refers in this respect to the General Survey on migrant workers it is carrying out at the present session, and which refers to this situation.

6. The Committee again invites the Government to take the necessary measures to extend the scope of the Labour Code and thus the protection of the Convention to these categories of workers and to report any measures taken to that effect.

II. Freedom of workers to leave the public service

7. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in its report. It will examine the text provided by the Government at its next session.

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

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.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1995, published 83rd ILC session (1996)

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 Shariah, 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 Shariah; any person subject to it is entitled to take his case to the judge 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 where they could exercise excessive control over workers, particularly foreign workers and those who are not covered by the labour legislation, such as agricultural and domestic workers.

The Committee recalls 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 once again requests the Government to indicate the sanctions imposed by law for the imposition of forced or compulsory labour. The Committee also requests 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.

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 the conditions of service of the public service, adopted under Royal Decree No. 49 of 10/7/1397-H, provides that the employment of a public servant who resigns comes to an end upon the acceptance by the competent minister of the resignation request or the expiry of a period of 90 days from the date on which the resignation was handed in. The minister may postpone acceptance of the resignation in the interests of the service for a period not exceeding six months from the date on which the resignation was handed in. The Committee would again request the Government to supply a copy of the conditions of service of the public service.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1994, published 81st ILC session (1994)

Refering also to its observation under the Convention, the Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in its 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 Sharia, 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 Sharia; any person subject to it is entitled to take his case to the judge 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 where they could exercise excessive control over workers, and particularly foreign workers, especially those who are not covered by the labour legislation, such as agricultural and domestic workers.

The Committee notes that in its comments, the International Confederation of Arab Trade Unions refers in particular to the situation of foreign workers, including those from Bangladesh, Pakistan, the Philippines and Turkey. It alleges that these workers are forced to pay a percentage of their wage to their "sponsor", that the "sponsor" has the right to retain their passport in order to prevent them from moving and that these persons are in a situation of slavery.

The Committee notes that in its reply the Government states that it has always fulfilled its constitutional obligations by supplying the reports required under articles 19 and 22 of the Constitution of the ILO. The Government rejects all the allegations made by the above organization and emphasizes that they refer to old matters, some of which go back nearly 40 years.

The Committee notes that in reply to its previous request the Government states that the right to take legal action is the right of all residents, both nationals of Saudi Arabia and foreigners, without any discrimination and under a procedure which has been simplified and is free of charge. The Government once again states that, since forced labour constitutes disobedience, any person committing such an act is liable to be penalized. Moreover, any individual who is not covered by the labour legislation, such as agricultural and domestic workers, who are the victims of forced labour, can take their case to the courts.

The Committee recalls 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 statement that workers such as agricultural and domestic workers may take their case to the courts, the Committee once again requests the Government to indicate the sanctions imposed by law in the event of forced or compulsory labour. The Committee also requests 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.

2. Freedom of workers to leave the public service. With reference to its previous request, the Committee notes the Government's statement in its report that section 30/A of the conditions of service of the public service, adopted under Royal Decree No. 49 of 10/7/1397-H, provides that the employment of a public servant who resigns comes to an end upon the acceptance by the competent minister of the resignation request or the expiry of a period of 90 days from the date on which the resignation was handed in. The minister may postpone acceptance of the resignation in the interests of the service for a period not exceeding six months from the date on which the resignation was handed in. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would supply a copy of the conditions of service of the public service.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1994, published 81st ILC session (1994)

The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government in its report.

The Committee also notes the comments made on 17 March 1993 by the International Confederation of Arab Trade Unions concerning the application of the Convention, and the Government's reply to these comments dated 13 October 1993.

The Committee is addressing a request directly to the Government concerning the allegations made by the Trade Union Confederation concerning the recruitment and sponsorship of foreign workers.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1993, published 80th ILC session (1993)

1. Article 25 of the Convention. In its previous comments, in which it pursued its dialogue with the Government, the Committee asked 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 notes the Government's explanations, repeated from previous reports, to the effect that subjecting an individual to forced labour, which is contrary to the prescriptions of the shariah, constitutes disobedience which is sanctioned as such and is equivalent to a crime in positive law. Forced labour is a kind of constraint which is prohibited and is subject to penalty by the shariah; any person subjected to it is entitled to take his case to the judge and to be compensated for harm done.

The Committee notes these indications and wishes to recall that Article 25 of the Convention establishes a firm obligation: the illegal exaction of forced labour shall be punishable as a penal offence and the penalties imposed by law must be really adequate and are strictly enforced.

The Committee considers thus that, even though forced or compulsory labour is prohibited in principle, in certain cases employers could be in a position where they could exercise excessive control over workers, particularly foreign workers, especially those who are not covered by the labour legislation, such as agricultural or domestic workers.

The Committee asks the Government to provide detailed information on the means of redress available to such workers in the law should they need them and to indicate the sanctions imposed by law in the event of forced or compulsory labour.

2. The Committee takes note of the explanations supplied by the Government in response to its comments on section 206 of the Labour Code.

3. Freedom of workers to leave the public service. The Committee notes the indications in the Government's report that freedom to resign is guaranteed. It asks the Government to state how and in which instruments this freedom is guaranteed. It also asks the Government to provide a copy of any regulations governing conditions of employment in the public service issued under section 59 of Royal Decree No. A/90 of 1 March 1992.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1990, published 77th ILC session (1990)

1. Article 25 of the Convention. In its previous comments, the Committee referred to the fact that certain categories of workers (persons employed in family enterprises, persons employed in certain activities concerning pastures, animal husbandry or agriculture, and domestic servants and persons regarded as such) are excluded, by virtue of section 3 of the Labour Code, from the scope of the protection afforded against acts prejudicial to the freedom of either of the parties, provided for under section 22 of the Code.

In its previous comments, the Committee noted the information supplied by the Government that these categories of workers may, if they are unlawfully subjected to forced or compulsory labour, appeal to the court which enjoys full jurisdiction (the sharia court) in the matter. The Committee requested the Government to supply copies of the provisions making punishable the exaction of forced or compulsory labour and to indicate whether the courts to which workers may appeal under these provisions are accessible to non-Muslims.

The Committee notes the Government's indication in its most recent report that under the country's jurisdictional system, individuals may take legal action before the sharia court since it has full jurisdiction in all cases which do not, by express provision, fall within the competence of other bodies. Thus, according to the Government, categories of workers excluded from the scope of protection in the Labour Code may bring action before sharia courts, as all litigation involving them is outside of the competence of other bodies. The Government indicates that it is a settled matter amongst the sharia court and theologians that discrimination is forbidden in matters of public and private rights between Muslims and non-Muslims living in the territory of a Muslim State. The right to take legal action for the protection of personal and property rights is a basic public right, thus there is no impediment to non-Muslims injured in their person or property to bring an action before a sharia tribunal.

The Committee takes due note of the Government's indication, particularly as regards equal treatment between Muslims and non-Muslims. While noting that workers excluded from the scope of section 22 of the Labour Code may bring action before sharia courts, the Committee again requests the Government to indicate on what basis such action may be brought, i.e., where does national law define those personal rights, violation of which may give rise to legal action in conformity with Article 25 of the Convention.

2. In earlier comments, the Committee referred to sections 78 and 206 of the Labour Code. Under section 78, the employer shall not transfer the employee from his original place of employment to another place necessitating a change of residence, if such transfer is apt to cause serious prejudice to the employee and is not justified by a valid reason dictated by the nature of the work. Section 206 provides that, with due regard to section 78 of this Code, an employee who refuses, in cases of necessity, to work in a place other than his original place of residence or to perform work other than that for which he was contracted shall be liable to a fine.

In its reports, the Government indicates that in its view the provisions of sections 78 and 206 of the Labour Code are in conformity with Article 2(2)(d) of the Convention. Moreover, the Government considers that since the Labour Code has been published and thus made known to all, workers are aware of its provisions before accepting a labour contract and are entirely free to accept the contract on this basis or refuse it.

The Committee takes due note of these indications. As regards Article 2(2)(d) of the Convention, the exception from the scope of the Convention provided therein is limited to circumstances that would endanger the existence or the well-being of the whole or part of the population, such as war or the natural calamities listed in that provision; by contrast, it appears that under sections 78 and 206 of the Labour Code, performance of work other than that for which the worker was contracted may be imposed for any valid reason dictated by the nature of the work. This is not covered by Article 2(2)(d) of the Convention.

As regards the fact that workers are free to accept or reject a particular labour contract, the Committee understands that workers may be aware of the provisions of the Labour Code when accepting a labour contract; however, they have no freedom to accept or reject the provisions of sections 78 and 206 of the Labour Code, which impose on them a legal obligation to perform work other than that accepted in the labour contract; the imposition of such an obligation by law, under the menace of penalties, falls within the definition of forced or compulsory labour in Article 2(1) of the Convention.

The Committee hopes that the Government will re-examine its position in the light of the Convention and that it will indicate in its next report measures taken or contemplated to bring sections 78 and 206 of the Labour Code into conformity with the Convention.

3. Freedom of workers to leave the service. The Committee, in its previous comment, noted that persons employed by the State may at any moment leave the service by submitting a resignation request and that the service of a public servant is considered to be terminated when the Minister responsible signs the order accepting his or her resignation or after 90 days have elapsed from the date on which the resignation request was submitted. It once again requests the Government to supply copies of statutory instruments that are applicable to such cases, including the provisions governing resignation by career members of the armed forces.