a. Arbitrary Deprivation of Life and Other Unlawful or Politically Motivated Killings
There were no reports government security forces committed arbitrary or unlawful killings during the year.
As of December authorities reported they were continuing to investigate the circumstances surrounding the death of five persons during a 2017 security operation to clear protesters outside the house of Shia cleric Isa Qassim.
b. Disappearance
There were no cases of enforced disappearances reported during the year.
c. Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
The constitution prohibits “harm[ing] an accused person physically or mentally.” Domestic and international human rights organizations, as well as detainees and former detainees, maintained that torture, abuse, and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment by government security officials continued during the year. The Ministry of Interior police code of conduct requires officers to abide by 10 principles, including limited use of force and zero tolerance for torture and mistreatment. According to government officials, the code forbids the use of force “except when absolutely necessary.” The Royal Police Academy included the code in its curriculum and provided recruits with copies in English and Arabic. The ministry reported it took disciplinary action against officers who did not comply with the code, although it did not publish details of such steps (see section 5).
The Special Investigation Unit (SIU), part of the Public Prosecutor’s Office (PPO) in the Ministry for Justice and Islamic Affairs, reported receiving 51 complaints in the first half of the year involving alleged torture, mistreatment, and excessive force used by members of the police. Information regarding specific new cases was limited.
Human rights groups reported accounts alleging security officials beat detainees, placed detainees in stress positions, humiliated detainees in front of other prisoners, deprived detainees of sleep and prayers, and insulted detainees based on their religious beliefs. Human rights organizations also reported authorities denied medical treatment to injured or ill detainees and prisoners. The Ministry of Interior’s Ombudsman’s Office reported it investigated all complaints and made recommendations to the government to address concerns. Detainees reported that security forces committed abuses during searches, arrests at private residences, and during transportation. Detainees reported intimidation, such as threats of violence, took place at the Criminal Investigation Directorate (CID) headquarters facility. Some detainees at the CID reported security officials used physical and psychological mistreatment to extract confessions and statements under duress or to inflict retribution and punishment.
A number of female inmates staged hunger strikes to protest conditions in the Isa Town Prison, including what they viewed as unwarranted strip searches. Medina Ali began her strike on March 22 to protest allegedly being strip-searched by authorities after a family visit. She claimed the strip search was retaliation for her political views; she also alleged that prison officials threatened to revoke her family visitation rights and telephone calls to punish her for the strike. On September 30, the National Institute for Human Rights (NIHR) visited the prison, and after a review of video and audio tapes of the alleged incidents, determined the prison guards’ actions were “within the limits of reasonable force.” Human rights activists alleged that the NIHR and other government-affiliated oversight bodies failed to adequately investigate and respond to credible reports of abuse at Isa Town Prison.
According to Amnesty International, Ali Mohamed Hakeem al-Arab and Ahmad al-Malali were tortured after being transferred to Jaw Prison following their January 2018 conviction for charges that included the murder of a policeman and “forming and joining a terrorist group.” They were sentenced to death. On May 6, they lost their appeal to the Court of Cassation, the country’s highest court, and were executed on July 27. The UN special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary, or arbitrary executions condemned the executions, citing allegations that officials used torture to extract confessions and concerns that the trial had not guaranteed fairness and due process.
The Ministry of Interior denied torture and abuse were systemic. The government reported it had equipped all prisons, detention facilities, and interrogation rooms at local police stations and the CID, with closed-circuit television cameras monitored at all times. In its 2018-2019 annual report, the Ombudsman’s Office detailed three cases of video evidence being used in disciplinary cases against police officers.
Human rights groups reported authorities subjected children, sometimes younger than 15, to various forms of mistreatment, including beating, slapping, kicking, and verbal abuse. The law considers all persons older than 15 to be adults.
Prison and Detention Center Conditions
Human rights activists reported conditions in prisons and detention centers were harsh and sometimes life threatening, due to overcrowding, physical abuse, and inadequate sanitary conditions and medical care. Detainees and human rights organizations also reported abuse in official pretrial detention centers, as well as in Isa Town Prison, Jaw Prison, and Dry Dock Detention Center.
Physical Conditions: Human rights organizations and prisoners reported gross overcrowding in detention facilities, which placed a strain on prison administration and led to a high prisoner-to-staff ratio. The same reports also detailed concerns regarding conditions in Jaw Prison, including overcrowding, unsanitary conditions, and lack of access to basic supplies. Previous reports from the Women’s Removal Center and Men’s Removal Center also highlighted unsanitary conditions. The government reported overcrowding concerns had been reduced in the Dry Dock Detention Facility and Jaw Prison as the courts made greater use of a 2017 alternative sentence law that provided noncustodial sentences to convicted criminals.
According to Amnesty International, approximately 450 prisoners at Jaw Prison and Dry Docks Detention Facility staged a mass hunger strike on August 16 to protest excessive use of solitary confinement, restrictions on religious rituals, and the use of glass to separate convicts and detainees from visitors. The government acknowledged the strike but reported that only 22 persons had joined the protest. Activists reported the hunger strike also reflected concerns regarding overcrowding in the prisons, lower quality food, decreased access to health care, and a reduction in visitation time.
Although the government reported potable water was available for all detainees, there were reports of lack of access to water for washing, lack of shower facilities and soap, and unhygienic toilet facilities. Human rights organizations reported food was adequate for most prisoners; however, prisoners needing dietary accommodations due to medical conditions had difficulty receiving special dietary provisions.
Authorities held detainees younger than 15 at the Juvenile Care Center, and criminal records are expunged after detainees younger than 15 are released.
The government housed convicted male inmates between ages 15 and 21 in separate buildings located on the grounds of the Dry Dock Facility. The Ministry of Interior separated prisoners younger than 18 from those between the ages of 18 and 21. Upon reaching 21, prisoners enter the general population at Jaw Prison.
The ministry reserved one ward in the pretrial detention center for the elderly and special needs detainees. Officials reported they offered these detainees special food, health care, and personal services to meet their needs.
The ministry operated a center for rehabilitation and vocational training, including various educational, antiaddiction, and behavioral programs. Activists said that the programs lacked trained teachers and adequate supplies and that the government did not allow some inmates to take national exams.
Although the ministry reported detention centers were staffed with experienced medical specialists and outfitted with modern equipment, prisoners needing medical attention reported difficulty in alerting guards to their needs, and medical clinics at the facilities were understaffed. Prisoners with chronic medical conditions had difficulty accessing regular medical care, including access to routine medication. Those needing transportation to outside medical facilities reported delays in scheduling offsite treatment, especially those needing follow-up care for complex or chronic conditions. In previous reports the quasi-governmental Prisoner and Detainees Rights Commission (PDRC) noted numerous deficiencies with health services at most facilities, and human rights organizations noted some prisoners with chronic medical conditions lacked access to medical care. To address some of these concerns, the government maintained a separate ward for prisoners with infectious diseases. According to the government, eight prisoners died during the year; the cause of death of five was deemed a result of medical conditions, while the other three were under investigation at year’s end.
Human rights organizations reported that during the year prison authorities at Isa Town Prison prevented Hajer Mansoor Hassan Ali, mother-in-law of activist Sayed Ahmed Alwadaei, from receiving adequate medical attention for several health conditions. Activists alleged that prison authorities intentionally denied Hajer medical care as a means of pressure and intimidation. The United Nations and human rights organizations alleged the government imprisoned, abused, and tortured Ali and two other members of Alwadaei’s family in reprisal for his activism. On February 25, the Court of Cassation upheld Ali’s 2017 conviction on terrorism-related charges.
Administration: Authorities generally allowed prisoners to file complaints to judicial authorities without censorship, and officials from the Ombudsman’s Office were available to respond to complaints. Human rights groups reportedly sometimes had to file multiple complaints to receive assistance. Prisoners had access to visitors at least once a month, often more frequently, and authorities permitted them 30 minutes of calls each week, although authorities denied prisoners communication with lawyers, family members, or consular officials (in the case of foreign detainees) at times. There were reports authorities denied prisoners access to religious services during special commemorations, such as Ashura, and prayer time. The government maintained it afforded prisoners reasonable accommodations for religious practice within the limits of prison administration.
Independent Monitoring: Authorities permitted access for the quasi-governmental NIHR and the PDRC, as well as the Ombudsman’s Office and the SIU (see section 5). International human rights organizations questioned the independence and effectiveness of these organizations. During the year the Ministry of Interior reported on the work of the Internal Audit and Investigations Department, which received and examined complaints against security forces. According to the ombudsman’s Annual Report 2018-2019, the Internal Audit and Investigations Department received 289 complaints between May 2018 and April, and it referred nine of the cases to the SIU for further action and 60 for disciplinary proceedings. The largest number of referred cases came from Jaw Prison and the CID. The Ombudsman’s Office also received 778 assistance requests, which included securing prison visits, telephone calls, medical services, or access to education.
On April 13, the ombudsman referred to the SIU complaints that prison guards were responsible for physically attacking inmates at Jaw Prison on April 12. Some sources alleged the confrontation started after prisoners claimed they were served spoiled food. The ministry stated that video surveillance had been included in the evidence provided to the SIU. As a result of the SIU’s investigation, 12 prison guards, including two senior officials, went on trial May 20 on charges of physically assaulting inmates. After a September 19 hearing, the Lower Criminal Court convicted five of the prison guards, sentencing them to three months in prison, and acquitted the other seven guards included in the case.
d. Arbitrary Arrest or Detention
The constitution prohibits arbitrary arrest and detention. Local and international human rights groups reported that individuals were detained without being notified at the time of the arrest of the legal authority of the person conducting the arrest, the reasons for the arrest, and the charges against them. Human rights groups claimed Ministry of Interior agents conducted many arrests at private residences either without presenting an arrest warrant or presenting an inaccurate or incomplete one. Government sources disputed these claims.
In 2017 King Hamad reinstated the arrest authority of the Bahrain National Security Agency (BNSA), after it had been removed following criticism in the Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry (BICI). There were no reports of the BNSA using its arrest authority during the year.
Arrest Procedures and Treatment of Detainees
The law stipulates law enforcement officers may arrest individuals without a warrant only if they are caught committing certain crimes for which there is sufficient evidence to press charges. Additionally, the code of criminal procedure requires execution of an arrest warrant before a summons order to appear before the public prosecutor. Local activists reported that police sometimes made arrests without presenting a warrant and that the PPO summoned political and human rights activists for questioning without a warrant or court order.
By law the arresting authority must interrogate an arrested individual immediately and may not detain the person for more than 48 hours, after which authorities must either release the detainee or transfer the person to the PPO for further questioning. The PPO is required to question the detainee within 24 hours, and the detainee has the right to legal counsel during questioning. To hold the detainee longer, the PPO must issue a formal detention order based on the charges against the detainee. Authorities may extend detention up to seven days for further questioning. If authorities require any further extension, the detainee must appear before a judge, who may authorize a further extension not exceeding 45 days. The High Criminal Court must authorize any extensions beyond that period and any renewals at 45-day intervals. In the case of alleged acts of terror, law enforcement officers may detain individuals for questioning for an initial five days, which the PPO may extend up to 60 days. A functioning system of bail provides maximum and minimum bail amounts based on the charges; however, judges often denied bail requests without explanation, even in nonviolent cases. The bail law allows the presiding judge to determine the amount within these parameters on a case-by-case basis.
Attorneys reported difficulty in gaining access to their clients in a timely manner through all stages of the legal process. They reported difficulty registering as a detainee’s legal representative because of arbitrary bureaucratic hurdles and lack of official government notaries; arbitrary questioning of credentials by police; lack of notification of clients’ location in custody; arbitrary requirements to seek court orders to meet clients; prohibitions on meeting clients in private; prohibitions on passing legal documents to clients; questioning of clients by PPO on very short notice; lack of access to clients during police questioning; and lack of access to consult with clients in court. While the state provides counsel to indigent detainees, there were reports detainees never met with their state-appointed attorney before or during their trial.
According to reports by local and international human rights groups, authorities held some detainees for weeks with limited access to outside resources. The government sometimes withheld information from detainees and their families regarding detainees’ whereabouts for days.
Arbitrary Arrest: Human rights groups reported the Ministry of Interior sometimes arrested individuals for activities such as calling for and attending protests and demonstrations, expressing their opinion either in public or on social media, and associating with persons of interest to law enforcement. Some of these detained individuals reported arresting forces did not show them warrants.
In December 2018 the Court of Cassation upheld a five-year prison sentence against Bahrain Center for Human Rights (BCHR) president Nabeel Rajab for tweets in 2015 criticizing the treatment of prisoners in Jaw Prison and Saudi-led coalition’s military operations in Yemen. On September 17, the Supreme Court of Appeals denied Rajab’s motion to overturn a lower court’s ruling that he was ineligible to receive an alternative sentence.
Detainee’s Ability to Challenge Lawfulness of Detention before a Court: There were reports that authorities sometimes delayed or limited an individual’s access to an attorney. There were no reports of courts finding individuals to have been unlawfully detained and recommending compensation.
e. Denial of Fair Public Trial
Although the constitution provides for an independent judiciary, political opposition figures reported the judiciary remained vulnerable to political pressures, especially in high-profile cases. The judiciary has two branches: the civil law courts deal with all commercial, civil, and criminal cases, including family issues of non-Muslims, and the family law courts handle personal status cases of Muslims. Based on the Unified Family Law, the government subdivided family court cases into Sunni and Shia sharia-based court proceedings. Many of the country’s approximately 160 judges were foreign judges serving on limited-term contracts (which are subject to government approval for renewal and residence in the country). The Supreme Judicial Council reported working with the Judicial Legal Studies Institute to prepare on average 10 new Bahraini judges per year, in an effort to increase their number. The Supreme Judicial Council is responsible for supervising the work of the courts, including judges, and the PPO.
Trial Procedures
The constitution presumes defendants are innocent until proven guilty. By law authorities should inform detainees of the charges against them upon arrest. Civil and criminal trial procedures provide for a public trial. A panel of three judges makes the rulings. Defendants have the right to consult an attorney of their choice within 48 hours (unless the government charges them pursuant to counterterrorism legislation); however, there were reports that defendants and their lawyers had difficulty getting police, public prosecutors, and courts to recognize or register representation by an attorney. The government provides counsel at public expense to indigent defendants. Plaintiffs are required to provide their own interpreters, except in labor dispute cases, when the Ministry of Justice may provide assistance.
Defendants have the right to present witnesses and evidence on their behalf. While defendants have the right to question witnesses against them, the judges may declare the questions to be irrelevant and prohibit a line of questioning without providing reasoning. Prosecutors rarely present evidence orally in court but provide it in written and digital formats to judges in their chambers. In criminal trials prosecutors and judges walk into the courtroom together. Defendants are not compelled to testify or to confess guilt, and they have the right to appeal. The government frequently tries defendants in their absence.
Family status law varied according to Shia or Sunni interpretations of Islamic law, especially for women (see section 6). In 2017 King Hamad ratified a Unified Family Law, which for the first time included a civil code for Shia family law. According to supporters of the law, the unified civil code protects women’s rights, in particular Shia women, from the imposition of arbitrary decisions by unregulated clerics. Women’s rights groups reported the family courts granted divorces more quickly and judicial decisions adhered to the new civil code.
In 2017 King Hamad also ratified a constitutional amendment that grants military courts the right to try civilians accused of threatening the security of the state. Government media reported the government approved the amendment to better fight terrorist cells, while activists claimed the change would jeopardize fair trial standards. The government did not use this mechanism during the year.
Political Prisoners and Detainees
According to human rights organizations, the government continued to imprison members of the opposition, along with scores of others detained for what these organizations assert is peaceful political activity. The government denied holding any political prisoners, although it acknowledged holding several dozen high-profile individuals, including leaders or prominent members of formerly legal, now banned political societies and organizations and others who were publicly critical of government institutions or government actions prior to their arrests. Authorities held some high-profile prisoners separately from the general prison population.
Ali Salman, the secretary general of opposition political society Wifaq, was detained beginning in 2014 for “inciting violence” and eventually convicted and given a four-year prison sentence that was upheld by the Court of Cassation in 2017. In 2015 the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention determined that Salman had been arbitrarily detained by the government. In 2017 the government further charged Salman with “attempting to overthrow the regime” and “giving away state and military secrets to foreign powers in exchange for money.” Although the High Criminal Court acquitted Salman on all charges in June 2018, the public prosecutor appealed the acquittal. In November 2018 the Supreme Court of Appeals reversed the lower court’s decision, finding Salman guilty of treason and sentencing him to life in prison (a 25-year term). Salman appealed his sentence to the Court of Cassation, which rejected the appeal on January 28.
Khalil al Halwachi was arrested in 2014, convicted of “possession of a weapon” and “insulting the judiciary” in 2017, and sentenced to 10 years in prison. Human rights groups expressed concerns that the evidence against al Halwachi was fabricated and that he was punished for his political beliefs and participation in an opposition political society. The Court of Cassation upheld al Halwachi’s conviction on May 6.
Politically Motivated Reprisal Against Individuals Located Outside the Country
In November 2018 Thai authorities detained soccer player Hakim al-Arabi because of an INTERPOL “red notice” the Bahraini government had filed for al-Arabi. Al-Arabi, who had resident status in Australia as a refugee, was in Thailand on vacation. He fled Bahrain in 2014 after being convicted of burning and looting a police station, although human rights organizations claimed he was participating in an international soccer match at the time of the alleged crime. On February 11, the Thai attorney general dropped the case, and Hakim was able to return to Australia. Human rights groups criticized INTERPOL and the Bahraini government for failing to rescind the red notice after al-Arabi had been granted refugee status in Australia in 2017.
Civil Judicial Procedures and Remedies
Citizens may submit civil suits before a court seeking cessation of or damages for some types of human rights violations. In many such situations, however, the law prevents citizens from filing civil suits against security agencies.
In cases where a person has no previous criminal history, is a minor, or is charged with minor legal infractions, the law provides alternative penalties and measures to reduce the number of inmates in detention centers and prisons. The government reported using the alternative penalty mechanism for more than 1,800 convicts between January and December. They were ordered to perform community service, repair the damaged they had done, or participate in rehabilitation classes. The law on minors prohibits the imposition of prison terms on children, defined as younger than 15.
f. Arbitrary or Unlawful Interference with Privacy, Family, Home, or Correspondence
Although the constitution prohibits such actions, the government violated prohibitions against interference with privacy, family, home, or correspondence. Human rights organizations reported security forces sometimes entered homes without authorization and destroyed or confiscated personal property. The law requires the government to obtain a court order before monitoring telephone calls, email, and personal correspondence. Many citizens and human rights organizations believed police used informant networks, including ones that targeted or used children younger than 18.
Reports also indicated the government used computer programs to surveil political activists and members of the opposition inside and outside the country.
According to local and international human rights groups, security officials sometimes threatened a detainee’s family members with reprisals for the detainee’s unwillingness to cooperate during interrogations and refusal to sign confession statements.