Executive summary

The following report was produced by Americans for Democracy & Human Rights in Bahrain and included information presented during the July 2025 session of the UN Committee Against Torture. It considers developments in Bahrain regarding the recommendations that the organisation had raised in the 2017 CAT report. For each of the 18 recommendations, what should have been the obligations of the Bahraini government were considered. Then, with the support of reports produced by the ADHRB and other human rights organisations, the way Bahrain has or has not implemented reforms in the individual issues is demonstrated with concrete examples. Finally, where no progress has been made in individual cases, the recommendations made by the UN in the 2017 report are reconfirmed.

Introduction

Eight years after the Committee’s urgent recommendations, the Bahraini state has failed to implement even the most basic safeguards against torture. The state’s legal architecture has evolved in form, but its practices remain structurally abusive and politically repressive. In effect, Bahrain has institutionalized a pattern of superficial reform and structural impunity. Across every category examined in this report, the State has preserved the mechanisms of abuse while performing nominative compliance for international observers.

As a signatory state of the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (also known as CAT), the country is faced with a number of obligations regarding the protection of the rights of those who are arrested, interrogated, put on trial or sentenced to serve a prison term. The state should ensure that at no time do these individuals suffer degrading treatment and that those who perpetrate it are tried and punished accordingly.

In 2017, the UN produced a report in which it analysed a number of issues in Bahrain and gave a number of recommendations on how the government should act in order to fulfil the obligations contained within the CAT. These recommendations ranged over a number of issues including the use of torture as a method of obtaining information, the use of solitary confinement as a means of punishment, the way in which prison riots were quelled, the monitoring of detention centres, and many other issues relevant to the respect of human rights.

Over the course of these years, however, Bahrain has not made progress on the various points touched upon in the 2017 CAT report. Problems continue to exist in the country regarding the use of torture as a method of coercion and obtaining confessions, the use of the death penalty, the use of violence to suppress riots in prisons, and much more. It is therefore legitimate to highlight what the problems continue to be in Bahrain and to push reforms in it.

In this report, Americans for Democracy and Human Rights in Bahrain demonstrates through concrete examples what the problems continue to be in Bahrain and to reaffirm the need for the country to implement reforms that will enable it to fulfil its obligations under CAT.

Recommendations

Discrepancy between the legislative and institutional frameworks and their implementation in practice

“While commending the establishment of the Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry and taking note of the amendments to national legislation concerning the definition of torture and the establishment of the institutional framework pursuant to the recommendations of the Commission, the Committee is concerned at the substantial gap between the amended legislative and institutional frameworks and their effective implementation in practice with regard to the obligations of the Convention (arts. 2, 4, 10 and 12-13).”

Following the recommendations raised in the UN report in 2017, Bahrain should have ensured that the work of the BICI was fully transparent and independent. The state should also have investigated allegations of torture promptly and without regard to the rank of the persons accused of this. Only in this way would a concrete implementation of the legislation adopted by the country have been achieved. Moreover, there would have been a respect for the articles cited by the Commission, which regard the fact that every signatory country shall prevent any act of torture in its territory in any circumstance and that these kinds of offences are under criminal law. Thus, it would ensure that people who commit these acts are correctly prosecuted.

Over the years, however, no improvement has been seen in this respect. Bahrain has not yet succeeded in restricting the use of torture and implementing the necessary reforms to adapt to the UN recommendation. The creation of the Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry was a step forward for the country, but it remains an institution with poor functionality. There continues to be a climate of impunity in Bahrain, and the authorities have failed to take steps to hold accountable those accused of torture and human rights abuses. The Ministry of Interior itself continues to state that the allegations of torture are unjustified and that torture is not used in any way within Bahrain’s prisons. Yet the names of those guilty of these actions are known. These include the King’s sons, Nasser and Khalid bin Hamad Al Khalifa; Rashid bin Abdulla Al Khalifa, the Minister of the Interior; and Khalifa bin Ahmed Al Khalifa, Brigadier General of Police in the Southern Governorate. Others are known to have committed this type of action and serve in high places while continuing to go unpunished. Bahrain must resolve this situation as soon as possible by prosecuting those guilty of torture and abiding completely to the legislation it has adhered to. Thus, it is important to reconfirm what was recommended in 2017 report.

Allegations of torture and ill-treatment and related impunity

“While taking note that the State party set up the National Commission to follow up and implement the recommendations contained in the report of the Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry, the Committee is concerned that there continue to be numerous and consistent allegations of widespread torture and ill-treatment of persons who are deprived of their liberty in all places of detention and elsewhere, particularly at the Criminal Investigations Directorate, at the moment of arrest, during pretrial detention and in prisons, in order to extract confessions or as punishment. It is also concerned at the climate of impunity which seems to prevail as a result of the low number of convictions for torture and the sentences given to persons responsible for torture resulting, inter alia, in death, which are not commensurate with the gravity of the crime (arts. 2, 4, 11-12 and 14-16).”

This recommendation ties in directly with the one concerning discrepancies between the legislation adopted by the country and its practical implementation. To limit the use of torture, Bahrain should have strengthened the role of the BICI and carried out more investigations against individuals accused of committing acts of torture. Such investigations should have been conducted against all persons, regardless of rank.

As mentioned for the previous point, Bahrain has not made significant progress on this issue. Torture continues to be a means used to obtain forced confessions to be used in unjust trials. This type of violence against prisoners has persisted since the 2011 uprisings, and those who perpetrate it continue to go unpunished. Over time, the BICI has repeatedly highlighted these issues, but has always been ignored. Two other institutions in Bahrain are essential for this issue, namely the Ombudsman for the Ministry of Interior and the National Institute for Human Rights (NIHR), but these are not functional. Concerning the former, many people have filed several complaints over time, but to no avail. The NIHR, on the other hand, is an institution that continues to be closely linked to the government and thus cannot operate independently and set its agenda. All this leads to the authorities continuing to use torture and other ill-treatment as a means of obtaining information without being prosecuted. This climate of impunity must stop, which is why we reaffirm what was demanded of Bahrain in 2017.

Military courts and the National Security Agency

“The Committee is concerned about: (a) The amendment made in March 2017 to article 105 (b) of the Constitution and the amendments made in April 2017 to the Military Justice Code allowing for civilians to be tried in military courts for cases concerning a threat to national security, which appears to be contrary to recommendation No. 1720 of the Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry; (b) Allegations that trials that took place in military courts during the state of national safety were unfair and that the judgments reached were often based on coerced confessions; (c) The restoration of law enforcement and arrest functions to the National Security Agency (arts. 2, 11-13 and 15-16).”

Based on the recommendation raised by the UN, Bahrain should have annulled the 2017 amendment allowing the use of military courts even against civilians. This change had created concern as Bahrain could have used it to crack down on those fighting for human rights in the country by accusing them of being a threat to national security. In addition to this, Bahrain should have ensured that the various trials conducted within the military courts take place under conditions of total transparency and following the rules of due process.

On this point, however, Bahrain has not taken any step forward. The amendment made in 2017 has not been annulled, and military courts continue to be used in the absence of transparency and against civilians fighting for human rights. Several relevant cases happened in 2017 that clearly show how Bahrain has used these courts to carry out harsh repression. Exemplary is the mass trial in December 2017, the first case in which a military court tried civilians. The case involved 18 people, only one of whom was a soldier, accused of forming a terrorist cell to assassinate the commander of the Bahrain Defence Force. At the end of the trial, six of the defendants were sentenced to death, seven received a seven-year sentence, and only five were acquitted. Also worrying was the treatment the prisoners received while in custody. Indeed, some of them reported being tortured in the pre-trial stages to obtain confessions, while others were made to disappear and held incommunicado. Furthermore, eight of the defendants were convicted in absentia while on the run in Iraq and Iran, while at least two of them were minors at the time of the offence. At the commencement of the trial, the authorities also prohibited the defendants from meeting their lawyers until the third hearing. The military court perpetrated many other abuses in the course of this trial, but the picture is nevertheless clear. The military courts act in a manner that is unclear and disrespectful of the people against whom the trials are conducted.

There have been no other such blatant uses of military courts since this case in 2017. Still, as Bahrain has not yet annulled the amendment to its Constitution, the possibility remains that further unjustified uses of these courts will be made in the future. Until there is clarity on the issue and Bahrain makes the necessary reforms, we reiterate what was said in the 2017 report.

The application of the death penalty

“The Committee is gravely concerned about: (a) The interruption by the State party of the de facto moratorium that had been in place since 2010 on the application of the death penalty, which led to the execution by firing squad on 15 January 2017 of Abbas al-Samea, Sami Mushaima and Ali al-Singace; (b) Reports that the trials of the three men convicted of killing three police officers in 2014 were based on confessions obtained under torture, and the fact that the competent authorities did not properly investigate the reports; (c) The situation of Mohammed Ramadhan and Hussain Ali Moosa, who face the death penalty and are said to have been convicted on the basis of confessions extracted under torture (arts. 2, 11-13 and 15-16).”

Following criticism and concerns raised in 2017 by the UN CAT report, Bahrain was supposed to re-implement the 2010 moratorium outlawing the death penalty. In addition to this, it should have shed more light on how the investigations against Abbas al-Samea, Sami Mushaima and Ali al-Singace were carried out, clarifying whether or not torture was used to obtain confessions. To get this clarity, it would have been sufficient to appeal to the Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry, which, however, does not continuously operate transparently and could have led to inconclusive results. Regarding the case of Hussain Ali Moosa and Mohammed Ramadhan, whatever progress may have been made ultimately proved futile. In 2018, the Court of Cassation suspended the death penalty and asked the High Criminal Court of Appeal to re-examine the case with new judges. Nevertheless, on 8 January 2020, the High Criminal Court of Appeal upheld the death sentence for the two prisoners, which were subsequently upheld by the Court of Cassation on 13 July 2020. To date, Hussain Ali Moosa and Mohammed Ramadhan are still detained on death row, and their execution could be carried out at any moment.

In 2019, the rate of executions was almost two-thirds of the per-capita rate of executions in Iran. In addition to the high number of executions, torture was how the authorities obtained information to incriminate those who were then sentenced to death row. A total of eight death sentences were carried out in Bahrain between 2017 and 2020. However, since 2021, Bahrain appears to have shifted toward replacing the death penalty with life imprisonment, as the last death sentence was the one upheld in 2020 by the Court of Cassation against Mohammed Ramadhan and Hussain Ali Moosa. Nevertheless, despite this apparent positive step in suspending both the issuance and application of death sentences, the death penalty remains enshrined in law. 26 men, including Ramadhan and Moosa, remain on death row, and their death sentences could be carried out at any time. Moreover, the situation of impunity continues, whereby the people who carried out the torture to obtain confessions from the prisoners are not prosecuted and investigated by the organs in charge of this. It is therefore essential to reiterate what was demanded of Bahrain in 2017 regarding this topic.

Fundamental legal safeguards

“The Committee is concerned about: (a) Allegations that most persons deprived of their liberty do not enjoy all fundamental legal safeguards from the moment of their apprehension; (b) The fact that, while audiovisual equipment for recording interrogations of suspects and detainees has been installed in all police stations, at the General Department of Criminal Investigations and in interrogation rooms used by prosecutors, interrogations during which ill-treatment and torture are inflicted often occur in other parts of those facilities in order to avoid them being recorded (arts. 2, 11 and 16).”

Following the recommendations raised in the 2017 CAT report, Bahrain should have proposed reforms to ensure certain rights are recognised for arrested people. This concerns the protection of their physical safety and the fact that they are not subjected to torture or other ill-treatments during interrogation. A further reform that would certainly have served this purpose would have been to provide for the compulsory use of audio-visual aids for the duration of interrogations. Finally, it would have been of great benefit to create a body to make sure that all stages from arrest to trial were carried out with respect for the legal rights of the detainees.

In Bahrain, there continues to be a total lack of respect for the legal rights of those who are arrested and interrogated. A 2015  case makes this situation clear. Four Bahraini nationals, Habib Ali Jasim Mohamed AlFardan, Jasim Mohamed Saeed Ahmed Ali Ajwaid, Husain Ali Basheer Ali Khairalla, and Ebrahim Yusuf Ali Ebrahim AlSamahiji, were arbitrarily arrested and deprived of any legal rights. The four were arrested without warrants, detained before trial without access to legal assistance, forced to give confessions through torture, and prosecuted on vague charges, as documented in the recent opinion of the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, adopted in August 2024. Although Ajwaid and Khairalla were released under the April 2024 royal pardon, AlFardan under the September 2024 royal pardon, and AlSamahiji was recently admitted to the open prisons program — which aims to ease detention conditions and allows benefits, including temporary weekly 12-hour releases — none of them have received compensation or reparation for the violations they suffered during their nine-year detention. Meanwhile, those responsible for these abuses continue to enjoy impunity.

In 2019, on the other hand, a 16-year-old boy was arrested by policemen in civilian clothes without a warrant and without being told the reason for the arrest. The boy was kept in the Criminal Investigations Directorate (CID) without his parents knowing anything. What is most worrying, however, is how the authorities carried out the interrogation of him. To obtain a confession, the child was blindfolded and electrocuted. After twenty days, the boy was released only to be called back to the CID a few months later and arrested again without a warrant and for no reason. Following re-arrest, the young man was again tortured to obtain a confession, without being allowed to contact his parents or receive legal assistance.

These cases show the lack of respect in Bahrain for the rights of people who are arrested, and how the absence of obligations to record confessions leads the authorities to abuse in order to obtain confessions. For this reason, we reaffirm what we demanded in 2017.

Forced confessions

“Despite the existing national legislation, the Committee remains concerned at numerous reports of the continued widespread use of forced confessions as evidence in courts and at the absence of information of any cases in which officials have been prosecuted and punished for extracting confessions in violation of article 15 of the Convention. It is also concerned at the widespread acceptance by judges of forced confessions, the fact that some individuals are reported to have been sentenced to 25 years of imprisonment on the basis of confessions made under torture, and the refusal of judges to take into account in court visible signs of torture shown by the defendants. It is particularly concerned that the sentences of the three persons who were executed on 15 January 2017 are reported to have been based on confessions extracted under torture (arts. 2 and 12-16).”

On this point, Bahrain should have complied with the provisions of its Code of Criminal Procedure, especially Article 253. Based on this article, “Every statement that has been proved to have been given by an accused or a witness under coercion or a threat thereof shall be ignored and shall not be relied upon.” In addition to this, it should have ensured that all cases raised by persons subjected to torture were followed up with due attention and that those accused of such conduct were prosecuted fairly and transparently. As we have seen in the previous points, including through concrete examples, means of coercion and torture continue to be used in Bahrain to obtain forced confessions. Moreover, such confessions are still used by judges, regardless of what is stipulated in the aforementioned Article 253. To this end, we reaffirm what we requested in 2017.

A recent case between August 2024 and January 2025 highlights the persistence of these practices. Four Bahraini minors, Abbas Muslem Abdali AbdulHusain Ali Juma, Ali Husain Ali Naser Hasan Matrook Abdulla, AbdulAziz Husain J. AlHammadi, and Aqeel Muslem Abdali AbdulHusain Ali Juma, were arbitrarily arrested for participating in protests and convicted in multiple cases of arson, unlawful assembly, and rioting based on coerced confessions obtained under torture. During interrogations, they were denied access to lawyers or guardians. Torture methods included beatings on various parts of the body, including the head, causing injuries, as well as blindfolding, yelling, verbal humiliation, threats of further violence, and psychological intimidation. Despite the victims informing the court that their confessions were obtained under duress, judges used them as evidence. Consequently, the minors received prison sentences ranging from six months to over three years. While Aqeel has been released after completing his six-month sentence, the other three remain imprisoned, serving terms between two and three and a half years while awaiting trial in additional cases also based on coerced confessions, exposing them to the risk of further sentencing.

Duration of pretrial detention

“While noting that the Code of Criminal Procedure stipulates that law enforcement officials should hand suspects over to the public prosecution within 24 hours of apprehension and that detention warrants issued by the public prosecution are valid for seven days only following the handover of the suspect, the Committee is concerned that the public prosecution can submit an application to a lower court judge to issue a warrant for up to a further 15 days, or for successive periods amounting in total to not more than 30 days. It is also concerned that article 147 of the Code of Criminal Procedure allows for detention on remand that can be imposed by a lower court for a period or consecutive periods of up to 30 days on condition that no period exceeds 15 days. It is particularly concerned that chapter I of the special section of the Criminal Code concerning State security offences allows the public prosecution to detain a suspect for an initial period of 28 days or for up to six months under the Act on the Protection of Society from Terrorist Acts (arts. 2, 4, 11 and 16).”

As a consequence of the recommendations made by the UN in the 2017 CAT report, Bahrain should have shown greater respect for its regulations. In this regard, it would undoubtedly have benefited from a monitoring body or reforms that would have set specific consequences if pre-trial detention limits were not respected. In this way, the country would have demonstrated that it was concretely applying not only the provisions of its law, but also those of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

To date, Bahrain has not yet resolved this issue. There continue to be many cases where arrestees are detained before trial for excessive periods of time, and most of the time, they are subjected to torture and other types of violence during these periods. This is what happened to Mohamed Ramadhan and Husain Moosa, who were already mentioned in the section on the application of the death penalty, and were arrested in 2017 and detained before trial for an extended period. Another example is that of Husain Ali Khamis, arrested in January 2018 and imprisoned at Jau prison for 42 days. After these days, Khamis was taken to the Dry Dock Detention Centre, where he remained for six months before being brought before the Public Prosecution’s Office. He then remained another four months at Dry Dock before being taken to court. Throughout this period, Khamis was subjected to torture to extract confessions from him, and, although Bahrain law forbids it, this evidence was then used against him for sentencing.

Recent cases reveal a systematic pattern of prolonged pre-trial detention in Bahrain, often marked by collective trial postponements. In several instances, pre-trial detention periods have been extended to between one and two months due to repeated delays, as seen in the cases of minors H.M., Ali Saeed Sdeif, Fadhel Abbas, Ali Redha Jaafar, Ali AlBaqali, Sayed Ahmed AlFullah, and Mohamed Moosa. Other cases demonstrate even longer collective pre-trial detentions, ranging from three to over six months, including those of minors Abbas Muslem Abdali AbdulHusain Ali Juma, Ali Husain Ali Naser Hasan Matrook Abdulla, and AbdulAziz Husain J. AlHammadi, who were already mentioned in the “forced confessions” section, whose trials were repeatedly postponed together. Abbas Muslem Abdali AbdulHusain Ali Juma and Ali Husain Ali Naser Hasan Matrook Abdulla, arrested on 26 August 2024, received their first prison sentences on 13 January 2025, nearly five months after arrest, while AbdulAziz Husain J. AlHammadi, arrested on 20 October 2024, received his first sentence on the same date, after almost three months in pre-trial detention. Similarly, minors Yousif Fadhel AlTooq, Ali Salman Maki Marhoon, and Mohammed Isa Khatam, arrested on 5 August 2024, also faced repeated collective trial postponements that extended their pre-trial detention for more than six months. On 25 February 2025, they were sentenced to one year in prison and fined 500 Bahraini Dinars. This prolonged arbitrary detention has driven several detainees to resort to hunger strikes in protest. On 14 January 2025, minors Sayed Qassim AlAlawi, Husain AlSamahiji, Sajjad AlAjaimi, Ali AlBaqali, and Ahmed Shaheen, detained at Dry Dock Prison, declared a hunger strike, demanding their release or an expedited trial, as some of them were held for over four months without a verdict. Similarly, in December 2024, Mohammed Isa Khatam, Ali Ahmed Omran, Ali Salman Marhoon, and Husain Saleh AlBarri also resorted to a hunger strike, demanding either their release or an expedited trial.

These cases show how Bahrain, despite continuous requests by the UN and other international organisations, continues to fail to comply with the pre-trial detention terms set by its own law. To this end, it is worth reiterating the importance of what was requested in 2017.

Solitary confinement

“While national law has prescribed since 2014, under the Reform and Rehabilitation Institution Act, that solitary confinement should not last for more than seven days, the Committee is concerned about the actual use of solitary confinement in different detention centres as punishment for prolonged periods of time. It is particularly concerned about the solitary confinement of Nabeel Rajab, which is reported to have exceeded nine months and during which he has been denied adequate medical care. The Committee draws the State party’s attention to the fact that excessive use of solitary confinement constitutes cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment or, depending on the circumstances, torture (arts. 2, 11- 13 and 16).”

Based on the 2017 UN report, Bahrain should have enforced what the Reform and Rehabilitation Institution Act stated. Prison authorities should have started using solitary confinement as a last resort and for short periods. Furthermore, legislation should also have been changed, providing the cases and reasons why a person was punished with this measure. Moreover, while in solitary confinement, prisoners should always be entitled to healthcare, especially those with severe medical conditions. As for Nabeel Rajab, his confinement ended with his release on 9 June 2020.

Despite the legislation enacted in 2014, solitary confinement is a measure that Bahrain continues to use arbitrarily, and no significant advancement has been made on this topic. Solitary confinement is, indeed, used as a means of punishment against some detainees who protest about the conditions they are forced to live in or for other reasons. This stems from the fact that the law mentioned above has no real definition of the causes that may lead a person to be subject to this restrictive measure. Even more problematic is when this measure goes so far as to limit the ability of some detainees to access services such as healthcare. A recent example is that of Abdul Jabbar Isa Mohammed, who suffers from a severe skin disease caused by the poor hygienic conditions in Jau prison. After his family denounced his condition and demanded that Abdul Jabbar be given access to necessary treatment, instead of being helped, he was placed in solitary confinement for five days as a punitive measure. Such use of such a restrictive measure is worrying, and Bahrain needs to adopt the reforms that were already called for in 2017.

Other recent cases illustrate the continued use of solitary confinement as a form of collective punishment. On 7 January 2025, juvenile detainees at Dry Dock Detention Center were collectively punished after requesting access to hot water for bathing — a basic prisoner right. In retaliation, authorities placed them in solitary confinement and denied them phone calls and access to the prison store. A similar incident occurred on 14 May 2023, involving death row political prisoners, including Mohammed Ramadhan and Hussain Ali Moosa. They were transferred to solitary confinement in extremely cold rooms, with their hands and feet shackled for two to three days. The incident followed a raid by prison officers under the pretext of conducting a search, during which prisoners’ belongings were vandalized. When some inmates protested the destruction of their property, guards violently assaulted them, causing injuries and burns.

Conditions of detention

“While taking note of information about the construction of new buildings to accommodate inmates, the Committee is concerned that overcrowding remains a problem in detention facilities. It is also concerned at reports of poor material and hygiene conditions in places of detention, including inadequate bathing and toilet facilities, lack of access to adequate quantities of food and to good quality food, lack of access to health care, lack of outdoor activities and unnecessary restrictions on family visits (arts. 2, 11-14 and 16).”

Based on the UN Committee’s demands in the 2017 Report, the Bahraini government should have implemented reforms to improve living conditions in the detention centres. First, the government should have found ways to regulate prison overcrowding while waiting for new facilities to be built. Second, detainees should have had access to basic healthcare, food, and drinking water. Also, not to be underestimated, is the need to live in an airy place, as the temperature in Bahrain can reach such high levels as being dangerous to health.

In 2024, the Shura Council passed a law to reform the General Directorate of Reformation and Rehabilitation. This would have led to an improvement of living conditions inside prisons, increasing the possibility of prisoners receiving visits and having access to free healthcare. In addition, the country has begun to adopt forms of alternative justice, replacing prison sentences with social activities aimed at rehabilitating and reintegrating inmates. In this way, the country hopes to progress on human rights issues and limit the number of people in prisons.

However, such reforms failed to reach the initial objective and conditions in Bahrain’s prisons remain terrible. The recent case of Jau prison is a demonstration of this. In August 2024, following protests within the facility, the authorities in charge imposed unacceptable conditions on the prisoners. They cut off the electricity for more than 12 hours and consequently switched off the air-conditioning system on a day when the temperature exceeded 50 degrees Celsius. This situation can be dangerous, especially for prisoners suffering from specific heart or kidney ailments. In addition, the prison authorities deprived the inmates of Jau of food and water, throwing everything into the rubbish, which was then not removed, thus creating unhygienic situations. Finally, severe restrictions were imposed on detainees with serious physical problems, limiting their ability to attend medical appointments by isolating them with foreign detainees. In addition, prisoners were denied any possibility of communicating with their loved ones or legal guardians for several days. Other examples include collective punishment measures imposed on minor prisoners following the fire that broke out in Building 17 of Dry Dock Prison on 19 August 2025. After the incident, prison officers assaulted several inmates, including some who had no involvement in the fire. All prisoners held in Building 17 were subjected to harsh conditions: they were placed in solitary confinement, kept shackled at all times, and denied access to beds (forcing them to sleep on the floor), showers, clean clothes, family contact, the canteen, outdoor areas, meals, and television for two weeks. These unhygienic conditions led to the spread of multiple skin diseases among the prisoners.

Similarly, another recent incident involved death row political prisoners in Building 1 of Jau Prison, who have been objecting since 2020 to their forced isolation alongside criminal prisoners infected with hepatitis and other contagious diseases. This arrangement compels them to share facilities such as the television and communication rooms, as well as outdoor spaces, with infected inmates, endangering their physical and psychological well-being and violating their most basic rights. In protest, the death row prisoners launched an open-ended hunger strike on 22 September 2025, which escalated into a sit-in in front of the prison administration office on 24 September 2025, demanding their immediate transfer to a building designated for political prisoners. On 7 October 2025, security forces stormed Building 1 and threatened to assault the prisoners to end their protest. Two days later, on 9 October 2025, the prison administration — led by officer Ahmed Al-Emadi — escalated its reprisals by cutting off family contact and visits, depriving prisoners of their daily outdoor time, and attempting to lock them in their cells, threatening the use of force if they refused to comply. When the inmates refused to re-enter their cells, riot police surrounded Building 1, climbed to its roof, and gave the prisoners a brief ultimatum to return to their cells, threatening to storm the building by force if they did not. In the face of episodes such as the ones presented, doubts and concerns remain about whether Bahrain is implementing reforms to improve living conditions in its prisons. For this reason, we reaffirm the recommendations made in the 2017 report.

Riots in Prisons

“The Committee is concerned at reports of outbreaks of violence by inmates in prisons resulting in riots and inmates escaping, as was the case in Jaw Prison in March 2015 and January 2017 and in Dry Dock Prison in 2016. The reports make reference to the excessive use of force by security forces in Jaw Prison, including their use of rubber bullets, tear gas and shotguns, as well as the harsh treatment of the detainees by the prison administration, which included forcing inmates to spend 10 days in the open courtyard and the transfer of 100 detainees to another section of the prison where they were reportedly subjected to collective punishment amounting to ill-treatment and torture. It has been reported that a number of prisoners were given increased sentences as a result of those events (arts. 2, 11-14 and 16).”

The Committee made several recommendations to rectify the issue of riots and general violent incidents in Baharani prisons. As per the recommendations, Bahrain was obliged to: ensure that security forces in detention facilities did not use excessive force nor used tear gas in enclosed spaces when quelling riots; ensure that the basic rights of detainees are maintained despite of the circumstance and that collective punishment was not used against detainees; ensure that effective investigations into all cases of violence in dention facilities were conducted as well as mitigating the conditions in detention facilities that lead to violence and provoke detainees; and that thorough investigations into all allegations of torture and ill-treatment of detainees are conducted as well as ensuring those found complicit in carrying out such acts are punished and victims are provided with medical and psychological rehabilitation.

Since the Committee published its recommendations, no progress has been made in Bahrain to implement the recommendations. Bahraini authorities have not addressed the underlying causes that lead to the riots in 2015, 2016, and 2017. The death of Husain Aman and the following prisoner protests highlight how Bahrain has failed to implement the recommendations. Husain Aman was a prisoner in Jaw Prison who died while serving his sentence. Violence is still used regularly against prisoners, who protest their conditions, and tear gas is still deployed in enclosed spaces. The prison administrations have also done little to avoid the use of collective punishment. The prison administrations have retaliated against the protesting prisoners by cutting off air conditioning, electricity, drinking water and reducing meals. As of the writing of this report, ADHRB is unaware of any investigations by the prison administrations into the conditions that led to the riots, investigations into the perpetrators of the violence, or programs that offer redress of assistance to victims of the violence. Despite ADHRB’s best efforts, the organization was unable to unearth any evidence that such investigations took place.

Following the recent hunger strike launched by political prisoners in Jau Prison on 6 October 2025 in protest of the administration’s failure to fulfill its repeated promises to release prisoners under alternative sentencing and to improve detention conditions, the authorities retaliated with punitive measures. These included denying hunger-striking inmates medical care, family video calls, the ability to visit other prisoners, outdoor time, and access to the canteen.

Hunger-striking political prisoner Jasim Mohamed AlEskafi reported to ADHRB on 3 October 2025 that he and several other inmates occasionally faint as their blood sugar levels drop to 3 or below due to the prolonged hunger strike, yet the prison administration continues to deny them medical treatment.

There is no ambiguity here: Bahrain continues to punish dissent with cruelty. ADHRB urged the Committee to demand accountability—not procedural promises. The State party should review the Committee’s previous recommendations and implement these recommendations in full. Special attention should be given to the use of tear gas within enclosed spaces. The underlying conditions that lead to prisoner violence should be addressed in order to avoid future violent incidents and collective punishment should be avoided in circumstances where prisoners do engage in violence. Investigations should be carried out to ensure that prisoners are not mistreated by authorities during incarceration and a means of punishing offending authorities as well as providing care to victims should be implemented.

Treatment of minors

“The Committee is concerned that the minimum age of criminal responsibility is 7 years and that minors over 16 years of age are in fact regarded as adult offenders, which increases their exposure to the risk of torture and ill-treatment. The Committee is also concerned at reports that 76 minors were detained during security operations in 2010 and that, of the cases of torture submitted to a non-governmental organization between 1 January and 26 June 2016, 10 involved individuals who were minors at the time of arrest. It is also concerned that minors were among the inmates against whom tear gas was used during the riot in Jaw Prison in 2015. Furthermore, the Committee is concerned that, of some 200 minors who were incarcerated in 2015, about half were detained in facilities for adults, sometimes owing to overcrowding (arts. 2, 11-13 and 16).”

The Committee made several recommendations to rectify the issue of the treatment of minors. As per the recommendations, the State party was obliged to: amend its legislation to raise the minimum age of criminal responsibility to 12 years old, as per the recommendation Committee on the Rights of the Child in its general comment No. 10 (2007) on children’s rights in juvenile justice; ensure that the standards of juvenile justice were implemented as well as the standards in the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice (the Beijing Rules), the United Nations Guidelines for the Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency (the Riyadh Guidelines) and the United Nations Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty; and to ensure that the detention of minors was used only as a last result and for the shortest possible period of time while simultaneously ensuring that they are not detained with adults, afforded full legal safeguards, and use non-custodial measures for minors found guilty of violating the law.

In 2021, the Corrective Justice Law for Children was enacted. Article 3 raises the minimum age of criminal responsibility from 7 to 15 years of age and Article 2 defines children as those under 18 years of age. The law, while raising the minimum age of criminal responsibility, has done nothing to address the Committee’s other concerns. Children, meaning those under 18 years of age, are often tried as adults and incarcerated in prisons with adults. The ongoing protests have only highlighted the discrepancies between the Corrective Justice Law for Children and its implementation. Our recent report highlights these discrepancies in full. Some notable issues include: the arbitrary detention of minors, torture of minors, unfair trials, prolonged prison sentences, and leveraging of additional charges against minor detainees after sentencing. Recent cases exemplify these violations, including those of Abbas Muslem Abdali AbdulHusain Ali Juma, Ali Husain Ali Naser Hasan Matrook Abdulla, and AbdulAziz Husain J. AlHammadi, who were warrantlessly arrested between the ages of 15 and 17 for exercising their rights to freedom of expression, opinion, and peaceful assembly by participating in peaceful pro-Palestine demonstrations in 2024. They were subjected to torture, coerced confessions, and denial of access to lawyers and guardians, and were subsequently convicted in multiple cases of unlawful assembly, rioting, and arson through unfair trials that relied on torture-extracted confessions. They received prison sentences ranging from two to three and a half years, and continue to face additional charges awaiting trial. Another case is that of 16-year-old minor political prisoner Sayed Mohamed Hashem Ali Yusuf AbdulWahab, who was arrested on 4 June 2025. During his detention, he was subjected to torture, including threats and verbal insults, which led to coerced confessions on charges of arson and rioting. He was also placed in isolation with foreign criminal inmates. After he submitted a formal request to the prison administration to review his classification and transfer him to a cell with political prisoners, the administration retaliated by denying him family contact. These issues all conflict with the Committee’s previous recommendations.

The system isn’t just ineffective – it is explicitly designed to be so. The State party should review the Committee’s previous recommendations and implement these recommendations in full. While the minimum age of responsibility has been raised since the Committee last addressed the issue, several concerns remain. These include:  the treatment of minors in legal proceedings; the frequency of minors being tried as adults; and the conditions that minors face while incarcerated in adult prisons are all issues that the State party needs to address. The State party should adhere to the international standards for the treatment of minors as outlined by the Committee’s previous recommendations, United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice, the United Nations Guidelines for the Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency, and the United Nations Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty.

Independent complaints mechanisms in places of detention

“While noting that persons deprived of their liberty can file complaints about torture or ill-treatment with a number of bodies created pursuant to the recommendations of the Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry, such as the Office of the Ombudsman (General Secretariat of Complaints) of the Ministry of the Interior, the Directorate of Internal Investigations of the Ministry of the Interior, the General Directorate of Reform and Rehabilitation of the Ministry of the Interior, the Ombudsman’s Office of the National Security Agency, the Special Investigation Unit in the Public Prosecutor’s Office, the National Institution for Human Rights and the Prisoners’ and Detainees’ Rights Commission, the Committee is concerned that those bodies are not independent, that their mandates are unclear and overlap, and that they are not effective given that complaints ultimately pass through the Ministry of the Interior. It is also concerned that their activities have had little or no effect, and that the authorities provided negligible information regarding the outcome of their activities. The Committee is further concerned about the loopholes in the existing complaints mechanisms whereby prison inmates have to submit complaints regarding torture or ill-treatment through prison wardens, the prison Director or Deputy Director, which does not guarantee that the complaints will be submitted to the competent authorities (arts. 2, 4, 11-14 and 16).”

The Committee made several recommendations to rectify the issue of the independence and effectiveness of offices and bureaus associated with detention. It was recommended that the State party: ensure the independence of all mechanisms that consider complaints both pretrial and after conviction; ensure that a mechanism exists that is completely independent of any links to prosecutors and alleged perpetrators to promptly, effectively, and impartially investigate all reports of torture and ill-treatment; ensure that those under investigation for committing acts of torutre and ill-treatment maintain a presumption of innocence but are suspended from their duties completely during the investigation; ensure that allegations of torture or ill-treatment are facilitated by the State party by obtaining evidence in support of the alleged incedents from competent and  independent doctors, as per the Manual on the Effective Investigation and  Documentation of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (the Istanbul Protocol); and ensure that all complaints in detention centers are protected from acts of reprisal due to a detainee’s complaint.

The State party offers detainees the opportunity to voice their complaints to the Ombudsman of the Ministry of the Interior. The Ombudsman was established in 2013 to independently investigate allegations of violations by staff of the Ministry of Interior and offer detainees and their families assistance. In practice, the Ombudsman’s independence and effectiveness is questionable at best. The Ombudsman’s office relies on the Ministry of Interior for administrative and financial support as well as requiring the Ministry’s approval for the hiring of employees. Furthermore, despite numerous complaints, the Ombudsman’s office does little to address detainee’s complaints.

Other organizations responsible for addressing prisoner complaints include Bahrain National Institute for Human Rights (NIHR), the Special Investigations Unit (SIU), and The Prisoners and Detainees Rights Commission (PDRC). All of these organizations, as well as the aforementioned Ombudsman of the Ministry of Interior, have overlapping responsibilities and lack independence and effective means to address human rights violations within the State.

The aforementioned organizations and offices have done little to ensure that prisoners who do lodge complaints are free from reprisals. This is evident by the protests in Jau Prison as mentioned in the previous section, where prisoners were punished, in the form of collective punishment, for lodging complaints to Ministry of Interior officials. Neither the Ombudsman, NIHR, SIU, nor PDRC has rectified the issue.

The State party has done the bare minimum to address the Committee’s concerns. Furthermore, the implementation of monitoring agencies lack independence and transparency.  The State party should review the Committee’s previous recommendations and implement these recommendations in full. The State party should guarantee the independence of all organizations and offices that address human rights violations against detainees as well as providing detainees a more direct means of lodging complaints against conditions within detention facilities. The various organizations and offices involved in the complaint process should facilitate detainees’ complaints through investigations into the alleged violations. Detainees who lodge complaints with authorities, as well as their fellow detainees, should be free of repercussions for lodging complaints.

Monitoring of places of detention

“While noting that visits to places of detention can be undertaken by the President of the Supreme Court of Appeal, the President of the High Criminal Court, the sentencing judge, the President of the Juvenile Court, the public prosecution and the accountability mechanisms created pursuant to the recommendations of the Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry, the Committee is concerned that law enforcement and prison officials continue to engage in conduct that is contrary to the Convention (arts. 2, 11 and 16).”

The Committee made several recommendations in order to ensure that inspections and visitations of the various detention facilities in Bahrain were carried out. To this effect, the Committee recommended that: the State party should ensure effective and independent monitoring of all places of detention were regularly carried out without prior notice to the detention facilities, while also ensuring that detainees could privately meet with the monitors to voice their concerns and report actions that violate the Convention; strengthen cooperation with United Nations human rights mechanisms by allowing for timely visitations by the special mandate holders; and to consider ratifying the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture.

In 2024, the Ombudsman visited Jau Prison in order to monitor the living conditions of prisoners. It is unclear if prison officials were given notice before the visit. While the Ombudsman spoke with prison officials, it is also unclear if detainees were given the opportunity to privately meet with the Ombudsman to voice their complaints.

The State still does not cooperate to the fullest extent of its capabilities with Special Procedure visits from United Nations officials. As of the writing of this report, the last Special Procedure visit to Bahrain was in 2007, despite multiple requests for visitation by the United Nations., The State should allow for visitation by independent human rights organizations. The refusal to permit outside scrutiny reveals what the Government knows to be true: its detention system cannot survive daylight.

The State party should review the Committee’s previous recommendations and implement these recommendations in full. More effort should be made by the State party to ensure the effectiveness and efficiency of visitations by monitoring organizations while also ensuring that these visits are carried out without prior notice given to detention centers. Prisoners should have direct access to all officials associated with the monitoring of detention centers during visits as reporting the mistreatment that detainees face within the prison system should be of utmost importance. The State party should agree to visitations with officials from the Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council. The State party should make a concerted effort to ratify the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture.

Reprisals and alleged torture and ill-treatment of human rights defenders and journalists

“The Committee remains concerned at numerous and consistent allegations of serious acts of intimidation, reprisals, threats, revocation of citizenship as a reprisal and arrests and arbitrary imprisonment of human rights defenders, journalists and their relatives in retaliation for their work. It is also concerned that many such individuals have reportedly faced arrest on criminal charges and have been placed on trial without due process of law and without benefiting from fundamental legal safeguards. The Committee is deeply concerned by reports that numerous persons who were deprived of their liberty have been subjected to torture or ill-treatment. It is particularly concerned about the situation of Abdulhadi al-Khawaja, Naji Fateel, Nabeel Rajab, Abduljalil al-Singace, Hussain Jawad and Abdulwahab Hussain, especially with regard to their access to medical care (arts. 2-3, 11-14 and 16).”

The Committee made several recommendations to rectify its concerns in regards to the reprisals and alleged torture and ill-treatment of human rights defenders and journalists. To this effect, the Committee recommended that the State party: implement recommendation No. 1722 of the Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry with special attention to force, arrest, treatment of persons in custody, detention and prosecution in connection with the exercise of freedom of expression, assembly and association; release human rights defenders and journalists, including Abdulhadi al-Khawaja, Naji Fateel, Nabeel Rajab, Abduljalil al-Singace, Hussain Jawad and Abdulwahab Hussain; promptly thoroughly, and independently investigate all allegations of harrassment, arbitrary arrest, torture or ill-treatment of human rights defenders and journalists, while punishing offenders and offering redress to vicitims; and ending the use of revocation of citizenship as a means of punishing human rights defenders, journalists, or any political dissidents.

The State party has partially implemented some aspects of recommendation No. 1722 of the Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry (BICI). The Ministry of Foreign Affairs claims that the establishment of the Ombudsman of the Ministry of Interior meets the criteria for recommendation No. 1722(d) and that the establishment of the Office of the Inspector General of the National Intelligence Agency was done in response to recommendation No. 1722. As mentioned in a previous section, it is unclear whether the Ombudsman meets the criteria of recommendation of the BICI since the effectiveness and independence of the Ombudsman is unclear. Thus, efforts by the State party to implement the Committee’s recommendations do not hold up to scrutiny.

Human rights defenders and journalists continue to be detained and face abuses while incarcerated. While Naji Fateel was released in April 2024 under a royal pardon, other defenders, including Abdulhadi al-Khawaja, Abduljalil al-Singace, and Abdulwahab Hussain are still imprisoned. Human rights defenders and activists continue to be arbitrarily arrested by authorities. The mistreatment of human rights defenders, journalists, and political dissidents are well documented while the chances of punishment of offenders and the possibility of redress for victims remains low due to concerns already raised in this report.

 The State party still uses the revocation of citizenship as a means of punishment; though, rarely, courts have reversed this punishment. The revocation of citizenship is unacceptable. The State party should abolish any and all practices that allow for the revocation of citizenship.

The State party should review the Committee’s previous recommendations and implement these recommendations in full. Though progress has been made in regards to recommendation No. 1722 of the Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry, the effectiveness of implemented solutions need refinement and expansion. The implementations thus far are not effective means of addressing the rampant issue of abuse and torture. The remaining concerns of the recommendation should be fully implemented. ADHRB urged the Committee to reiterate its concerns about the treatment of human rights defenders, journalists, and political dissidents and call for the immediate release of these detainees.

Violence against women, including domestic and sexual violence

“The Committee is concerned that violence against women, including marital rape and domestic violence, are not separate crimes in the Criminal Code, and at the delay in the adoption of legislation in that regard. It is particularly concerned that article 353 of the Criminal Code exempts perpetrators of rape from prosecution and punishment if they marry their victims, and that article 334 reduces the penalties for perpetrators of crimes committed in the name of so-called honour (arts. 2, 12-14 and 16).”

The Committee made several recommendations to rectify its concerns in regards to violence against women. The recommendations to the State party were: to define an include the crimes of domestic violence, sexual violence, and martial rape in the Penal Code; amend said Penal Code to remove articles 334 and 353, which sets reduced penalities for offenders in honor-based crimes and exempts perpetrators of rape if they marry the victim, respectively; adopt the bill on domestic violence; register all allegations of domestic and sexual violence against women with the police and that police promptly, impartially, and effectively carry out investigations and offenders are prosecuted and punished; protect victims of domestic violence through restraining orders and offer them medical and legal services, redress and rehabilitation, as well as access to government-funded shelters; provide training on the vulnerabilities of vicitims in gender-based and domestic violence to police and other law enforcement officials, social workers, prosecutors, and judges.

Some progress has been made in the State. For example, Article 353 was abolished in 2023. Though this progress is welcomed, there has been no progress in regards to the Committee’s other concerns. Women still face violence in their everyday lives within Bahrain. The State party has not demonstrated any commitment to further protect women from abuse.

The State party should review the Committee’s previous recommendations and implement these recommendations in full. ADHRB further requested that the Committee reiterate its desire for the abolishment of article 334 and its concerns pertaining to said article. ADHRB further urged the State party to fully implement the remaining concerns of the Committee in relation to violence against women.

Corporal punishment of children 

“The Committee is concerned at reports that corporal punishment of children is still permitted in the home, in alternative care and day-care settings and in penal institutions (arts. 2, 4 and 16).”

The Committee made a single recommendation to the State party to rectify the issue: to enact legislation to explicitly and clearly prohibit corporal punishment in all settings.

No progress has been made to rectify the Committee’s concern nor to implement its recommendation. ADHRB recently intervened at the United Nations Human Rights Council’s 58th session under item 3 during the Interactive Dialogue with Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. ADHRB called attention to, along with other concerns, the ongoing use of corporate punishment against minors within Bahraini children.

The State party should review the Committee’s previous recommendations and implement these recommendations in full.

Visits by United Nations human rights mechanisms

“The Committee is concerned that, despite repeated requests to visit the country by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, the State party postponed the visit, claiming that it had come at an inopportune time on account of its efforts to implement the recommendations of the Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry and a far-reaching process of reform and development. The Committee is also concerned that the representatives of the State party were not able to indicate when the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights would be permitted to visit the country in response to the invitation the Parliament of Bahrain issued through the media to visit places of detention and Shia villages in Bahrain. The invitation had been accepted by the High Commissioner, but the Government of Bahrain had taken no action in that regard at the time of the dialogue with the Committee.”

The Committee made a single recommendation to the State party to rectify the issue: to promptly accept requests for visitation from the United Nations Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; particularly, to all visitations to places of detention.

As previously mentioned in the section regarding the monitoring of places of detention, the State party still refuses to accept visitations from the United Nations Special Rapporteur. No progress has been made to rectify the issue. The last visitation was in 2007.

The State party should review the Committee’s previous recommendations and implement these recommendations in full.

Other issues

As previously mentioned, the State party has yet to rectify the Optional Protocol to the Convention. The State party has, as of the writing of this report, not yet ratified the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families nor the International Convention for the Protection of all Persons from Enforced Disappearance.

Summary

Though progress has been made in a few select areas, the majority of the Committee’s concerns still remain an issue in the State. When progress has been made, it often does not go far enough to address the underlying issues. ADHRB requested that the Committee reiterate to the State party its concerns as per the 2017 Concluding Remarks. The State party should be encouraged to fully implement the previous recommendations.

The post Eight Years of Unfulfilled Promises: What ADHRB’s Report to the Committee Against Torture Reveals About Bahrain? appeared first on Americans for Democracy & Human Rights in Bahrain.

This post was originally published on Americans for Democracy & Human Rights in Bahrain.