Demande directe (CEACR) - adoptée 2013, publiée 103ème session CIT (2014)

Convention (n° 182) sur les pires formes de travail des enfants, 1999 - Arabie saoudite (Ratification: 2001)

Autre commentaire sur C182

Observation

Demande directe

Afficher en : Francais - Espagnol - ArabicTout voir

Article 3 of the Convention. Clause (b). Use, procuring or offering of a child for prostitution and pornography. The Committee previously noted that draft regulations on child protection, containing provisions for the protection of children from maltreatment and neglect, including sexual, psychological and physical exploitation were being examined in the Majilis El Shoura.

The Committee notes that, according to the Government’s report submitted to the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review of the Human Rights Council on 5 August 2013 (A/HRC/WG.6/17/SAU/1, paragraph 57), the Child Protection Act was approved on 24 December 2012 and prohibits any activities that might damage the child’s health or physical integrity. The Committee requests the Government to indicate which provisions of the Child Protection Act specifically prohibit the commercial sexual exploitation of children, including the use, procuring or offering of children under 18 years for prostitution and for the production of pornography or pornographic performances.

Clause (d). Hazardous work. Domestic and agricultural workers. The Committee previously noted that agricultural workers and domestic workers did not benefit from the protection laid down in the Labour Code. The Committee also noted that Ministerial Order No. 2839 of 1 October 2006 on hazardous types of work did not apply to the categories excluded by the Labour Code. However, the Government stated that it paid attention to ensuring that children under the age of 18 years avoid engaging in work which, by its nature or the circumstances in which it is carried out, is likely to harm the health, safety or morals of children. The Committee requested the Government to provide information on the specific measures taken to ensure that children working in domestic work and agriculture do not engage in hazardous work.

The Committee observes that the Government does not provide information on this point in its report. It notes, however, that according to the Government’s report under the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29), a Regulation on domestic workers and persons of similar status was approved by virtue of Order No. 310 of 2013 of the Council of Ministers. The Government indicates that this Regulation includes provisions stating that employers must not assign domestic workers to perform work other than that agreed in the contract, nor work that is hazardous to health, demeaning, or work for a third party. Employers are further required to ensure that domestic workers enjoy a daily rest period and a day off per week. The Regulation also contains several penalties which are imposed on any person who violates its provisions. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the application of the Regulation on domestic workers and persons of similar status with regard to child workers under 18 years of age, including the number of prosecutions, convictions and penalties applied on employers who violated the provisions of the Regulation. It requests the Government to provide a copy of this Regulation along with its next report. Moreover, the Committee urges the Government to take effective and time-bound measures to ensure that children working in agriculture do not engage in hazardous work. It once again requests the Government to provide information on the specific measures taken in this regard, and on the results achieved.

Article 7(1). Penalties. Employing children under 18 years as camel jockeys. The Committee previously noted that, according to the Royal Decree No. 13000 of 17 April 2002, a camel owner who employed a jockey under 18 years of age to participate in camel racing would not, in the case of winning a race, receive the prize. While the Committee noted the Government’s statement that a camel owner who employed a person under 18 years was punished, whether or not he won the race, it observed that this did not appear to be specified in the text of the Royal Decree No. 13000. Moreover, the Committee observed that the penalties provided for in the Royal Decree No. 13000 did not appear to be sufficiently effective and dissuasive. The Committee noted the Government’s statement that each jockey was required to furnish official documents attesting to their age (national ID, passport or residence permit), after which they are to be issued a “jockey card”, with a photo stamped with the particular festival’s seal. The Government stated that, before a race, the competent committees inspected the jockey card, matching the photo to the name on the ID. The Government also stated that, pursuant to rules on animal care, robot jockeys were prohibited from races which are supervised by the national guard. The Government also stated that it endeavoured to put a limit on any of the excesses which may occur in private races not supervised by the national guard. Noting the absence of information on this point in the Committee’s report, the Committee once again requests the Government to provide a copy of the instructions or regulations outlining the procedure for identification checks, the issuance of “jockey cards”, and the verification of such cards prior to the race. It also once again requests the Government to provide information on the concrete measures taken to ensure that children under the age of 18 years are not engaged as camel jockeys in private races that are not supervised by the national guard. Lastly, it once again requests the Government to provide information, in its next report, on the penalties imposed on persons found to be engaging children in camel racing, in addition to the preventive measures taken.