20 October 2026
Thirty-two human rights organisations, including the Bahrain Institute for Rights and Democracy (BIRD), Human Rights Watch and the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), have written to French President Emmanuel Macron ahead of his visit to Bahrain, urging him to prioritise human rights in his discussions with King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa.
Macron’s visit forms part of a Gulf tour from 19 to 21 October, encompassing Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Qatar. Despite ongoing unrest in France, Macron landed in Bahrain this afternoon, where he was welcomed by King Hamad and his sons.
Video footage of Macron’s arrival: Associated Press (AP).
In their joint letter, dated 16 October, the organisations warn that Bahrain is experiencing its most severe crackdown on dissent since 2011 and that closer political and security cooperation with France risks emboldening the Bahraini authorities.
The letter documents more than 700 arrests since the outbreak of the war between Iran, the United States and Israel. It also details the revocation of citizenship of 69 Bahrainis, including 33 children, the youngest of whom was just 19 days old at the time. It raises concerns about the mass prosecution of 69 defendants, including 46 detained Shia clerics, amid allegations of torture, coerced confessions and serious violations of fair trial rights.
It also highlights the death in custody of 32-year-old Sayed Mohamed Al-Mousawi, whose body was returned to his family bearing visible signs of torture, and the plight of 19 prisoners facing the death penalty, 18 of whom have exhausted their legal remedies.
The organisations demand the immediate and unconditional release of political prisoners, including Danish-Bahraini human rights defender Abdulhadi Al-Khawaja, Swedish-Bahraini dissident Sheikh Mohammed Habib Al-Muqdad, opposition leader Hassan Mushaima and academic Dr Abduljalil Al-Singace, all imprisoned for more than 15 years. Dr Al-Singace has been on a liquid-only hunger strike for over five years.
The organisations warn that unless Macron makes concrete demands for human rights improvements, including the release of political prisoners, his visit “risks legitimising Bahrain’s repression and sending a dangerous message to its rulers that they can continue imprisoning critics, persecuting religious leaders and stripping children of their citizenship without facing any consequences to their relations with France.”
Sayed Ahmed Alwadaei, Advocacy Director at the Bahrain Institute for Rights and Democracy (BIRD), said:
“Since the outbreak of the Iran war, repression in Bahrain has intensified sharply. Bahrain’s ruler is jailing critics, stripping children of their citizenship and presiding over widespread torture. Thirty-two-year-old Sayed Mohamed Al-Mousawi was tortured to death in custody. Macron must raise these abuses publicly or risk legitimising this brutal repression.
France must not sacrifice human rights for lucrative Gulf deals under the guise of regional security. Bahrain must not be allowed to buy France’s silence. Those responsible for serious human rights abuses must face consequences, not rewards from France.”
Antoine Madelin, FIDH Advocacy Director, stated:
“The current crisis should remind President Macron that lasting energy security depends on respect for human rights and peace. France must look beyond immediate supplies and support the open, democratic societies on which a stable future depends. Bahrain’s diverse and plural society deserves that support. Macron must speak out against the repression that is closing civic space and press for the release of those imprisoned for exercising their rights. Seeking Bahrain’s support makes defending these freedoms more urgent, not less.”
The organisations urge Macron to press Bahrain to release political prisoners, end the mass prosecution of Shia clerics, restore citizenship to those stripped of it, and establish an immediate moratorium on executions. They also call for human rights safeguards on French security assistance and independent assessments before concluding agreements with Bahrain.
— END —
]]>16 October 2026
Re: Your visit to Bahrain amid an escalating human rights crackdown
Dear President Macron,
We, the undersigned human rights organisations, write ahead of your visit to Bahrain, scheduled as part of your Gulf tour from 19 to 21 October, to urge you to place human rights at the centre of your discussions with King Hamad Al-Khalifa. Your visit comes amid Bahrain’s most severe crackdown on dissent since 2011, raising serious concerns that closer political and security cooperation with France could embolden the Bahraini authorities at a time of escalating repression.
We recognise the importance of regional security and stability, particularly amid the ongoing conflict. However, these objectives should not come at the expense of fundamental human rights or overlook serious ongoing abuses.
Since the outbreak of the Iran–US–Israel war, the Bahraini authorities have intensified their crackdown on fundamental freedoms:
These developments come amidst a longstanding pattern of arbitrary detention and impunity. Two European citizens, Danish-Bahraini human rights defender Abdulhadi Al-Khawaja and Swedish-Bahraini prominent dissident Sheikh Mohammed Habib Al-Muqdad, have remained wrongfully imprisoned for more than 15 years since their initial arrest, as have prominent political prisoners Hassan Mushaima and Dr. Abduljalil Al-Singace. Dr Al-Singace has been on a liquid-only hunger strike for more than five years protesting confiscation of his manuscripts. The four men, along with others in arbitrary detention, have been tortured and denied adequate medical care.
Bahrain also continues to impose the death penalty following proceedings riddled with serious fair trial concerns. There are currently 19 individuals facing the death penalty, 18 of whom have exhausted their legal remedies. We are particularly concerned about Mohammed Ramadhan and Husain Moosa, whose detention the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention found to be arbitrary, and who called for their immediate and unconditional release.
In February 2013, France joined 43 other states at the UN Human Rights Council in raising concerns over political imprisonment, unfair trials and citizenship revocations in Bahrain. The European Union, including through its Special Representative for Human Rights and in human rights dialogues, has repeatedly called for their release, but more than 15 years after their arrest, some of those same prisoners, including EU citizens Al-Khawaja and Al-Muqdad, remain behind bars, and abuses continue.
President Macron, unless you formulate concrete calls to improve Bahrain’s human rights record, including chiefly the release of human rights defenders and political prisoners, your visit risks legitimising Bahrain’s repression and sending a dangerous message to its rulers that they can continue imprisoning critics, persecuting religious leaders and stripping children of their citizenship without facing any consequences to their relations with France.
We therefore urge you to use your visit as an opportunity to press King Hamad to:
We respectfully further ask that France should:
We urge you to raise these concerns publicly and privately with King Hamad and make clear that France’s commitment to regional security does not come at the expense of the fundamental rights of the Bahraini people.
We stand ready to provide further information and discuss these issues any time, and would welcome a response outlining what and how human rights issues were raised during your visit.
Yours sincerely,
The hearing today will focus on Interpol’s assertion that it has immunity from this claim. It follows a series of written pleadings which have been filed by the parties. This is one of the first times that a French court will rule on Interpol’s asserted immunity from legal action seeking compensation in France in respect of Red Notices. The Lyon Court’s ruling will be a landmark decision.
The case comes before a French court at a time when INTERPOL is presided over by Lucas Philippe, a senior French National Police officer, who was elected President of the organisation in November 2025 for a four-year term. The hearing also takes place amid growing documentation of the misuse of Red Notices by States to pursue political opponents, human rights defenders and journalists abroad, including investigations by the French outlet Disclose and the BBC Eye.
Timeline of key events:
Ahmed Jaafar Mohamed Ali took part in Bahrain’s 2011 popular uprising against the national authorities. He was later convicted in absentia on fabricated terrorism-related charges and sentenced to life imprisonment. This conviction formed the basis of the INTERPOL Red Notice that led to his arrest in Serbia 3 November 2021 and subsequent extradition on 24 January 2022. In a separate case, he received another life sentence on 26 February 2015. This case involved the murder of three police officers, including an Emirati officer, an offence that took place while he was not even in the country. The same proceedings resulted in the executions of three individuals convicted in the case. UN experts have condemned these ‘arbitrary executions’, with the UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions declared these executions to be ‘extrajudicial killings’ in a European Parliament resolution denouncing the executions.
On 3 November 2021, he was arrested in Belgrade pursuant to an Interpol Red Notice, which Bahrain had requested on the basis of these unlawful convictions, and placed in extradition detention. While in detention, he applied for political asylum in Serbia, however his application was rejected. On 18 January 2022, the Serbian courts ruled that the conditions for extradition were met, and the Serbian Ministry of Justice signed an extradition decree.
Facing imminent extradition to Bahrain, where he was a targeted opponent and at risk of torture, he lodged an urgent application with the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) under Rule 39 of the Rules of the Court. On 21 January 2022, the ECtHR issued an interim measure ordering the Serbian government not to extradite him. Despite this and in flagrant breach of the Court’s order, Serbia extradited him to Bahrain on 24 January 2022 and he was flown to Bahrain on a UAE charter operator, RoyalJet.
On 29 January 2022, the Bahrain News Agency confirmed his return to the Kingdom to serve his sentence, stating that the extradition had taken place “with the assistance of INTERPOL”.
In a judgment delivered on 25 March 2025 (Ali v. Serbia, no. 4662/22), the ECtHR found that Serbia had violated Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which prohibits torture and inhuman or degrading treatment, by failing to properly examine his claim that he faced a risk of ill-treatment in Bahrain before extraditing him.
On 15 September 2026, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe called on Serbia to take the necessary measures, including diplomatic steps, to obtain information from the Bahraini authorities about his current situation and to ensure that his rights under Article 3 are effectively protected.
UN experts have previously raised serious concerns about Jau Prison and urged Bahrain to ensure that prisoners are treated humanely and with dignity and to avoid life-threatening consequences. In brief telephone calls with relatives Ahmed Jaafar Mohamed Ali has repeatedly described conditions that amount to torture including being assaulted and mistreated; overcrowded cells where inmates sleep on the floor; alternating repeated periods of solitary confinement; and a ban on written correspondence. Since his extradition in January 2022, he has been allowed only one family visit.
The claim before the Tribunal judiciaire de Lyon argues that, by issuing this Red Notice, INTERPOL violated its own Constitution and committed a fault that engages its civil liability. As with any legal entity operating on French territory, there must be a remedy against INTERPOL when its wrongful actions cause harm to a third party.
Ahmed Jaafar Mohamed Ali suffered considerable harm as a result of the publication of the Red Notice, and is seeking compensation for:
INTERPOL argues that it enjoys immunity from legal proceedings. However, Mr Ali submits in this claim, inter alia, that an international organisation’s immunity must be set aside where it does not provide an effective alternative remedy. In practice, there is no such remedy: people targeted by Red Notices issued in breach of INTERPOL’s rules have no means of obtaining compensation for the harm caused.
Earlier this month, Ahmed Jaafar Mohamed Ali spoke by telephone with Sayed Ahmed Alwadaei, Director of Advocacy at the Bahrain Institute for Rights and Democracy (BIRD), who has been assisting him during his imprisonment. He said: “I suffered torture and I have been sentenced to life imprisonment on the basis of fabricated charges. I hold INTERPOL responsible for facilitating my extradition from Serbia to Bahrain and for my unimaginable suffering since being extradited.”
Sayed Ahmed Alwadaei, who advocates for the release of political prisoners and conducts international advocacy initiatives, said: “INTERPOL has destroyed Ahmed Jaafar’s life and devastated his family. He is now languishing in Bahrain’s notorious Jau Prison, enduring appalling conditions that no human being should ever be subjected to. He has also been repeatedly assaulted by prison officials and criminal inmates, putting his life at risk. INTERPOL must face the consequences of its actions. No organisation should be allowed to hide behind immunity after facilitating a political prisoner’s unlawful extradition, exposing him to torture and imprisonment for the rest of his life”.
UPDATE: A hearing took place today, 13 October, before the Lyon Court in France in a civil claim brought against INTERPOL by Bahraini political prisoner Ahmed Jaafar Mohamed Ali.
The court is expected to deliver its judgment on 31 December 2026 on the preliminary question of whether INTERPOL enjoys immunity from legal proceedings in this case.
]]>(Beirut) – Bahraini authorities have rearrested at least nine men who had previously been released from prison by royal pardon, the Bahrain Institute for Rights and Democracy (BIRD) and Human Rights Watch said today.
The men, who were previously detained on politically motivated charges, were arrested in July and August 2026 for allegedly failing to pay fines dating back a decade. Bahraini authorities should immediately release them and cease all efforts to collect the dubious unpaid fines.
“King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa’s decision to pardon over 3,000 prisoners in the last two years earned immense praise from the international community, but these new arrests call into question whether the pardons were genuine,” said Niku Jafarnia, Bahrain and Yemen researcher at Human Rights Watch. “Those who praised the pardons should call on Bahrain to stop rearresting people and release those again detained.”
BIRD and Human Rights Watch spoke to three people, including Naji Fateel, a prominent Bahraini human rights defender who was among the nine rearrested and who spoke from detention. They also spoke to Mustafa al-Jamri and Hassan Burwase, who have not yet been rearrested, but who said the authorities were trying to detain them.
The arrests are happening against the backdrop of one of the biggest crackdowns by Bahrain’s authorities on freedom of expression and assembly since the widespread arrests following the 2011 pro-democracy protests. Since March, authorities have arrested over 600 people on various charges, including “supporting and endorsing a state hostile to Bahrain” and espionage, and at least 69 people of Iranian descent have been stripped of their Bahrain nationality, including many children.
Those interviewed said the issue was alleged unpaid fines imposed on them and 48 others accused of causing damage during a major protest in Jau Prison in 2015. Human Rights Watch and BIRD have documented that the authorities imposed physical and psychological abuse on the protesters and denied them needed medical care.
In 2016, the authorities added 15 years to their sentences and fined them a total of 507,187.97 Bahraini Dinars (approximately US$1.35 million), for offenses including damaging public property, attacking police, arson, and resisting authorities. At the time, BIRD, along with several other human rights organizations, called into question the convictions, saying the Bahraini government had sentenced 57 people to lengthy prison terms amid allegations of abuse, torture, and due process violations, and called on security officials involved in the abuse to be held accountable.
The 2024 royal pardons included 33 of those men. All three men interviewed said that their understanding was that the royal pardon also included the charges and fines imposed under the 2016 sentence following the protests. However, in early June, the authorities contacted many of the men to say that they had to pay fines without specifying what the fines were in relation to or how much they should pay.
Al-Jamri said that a security official who called him simply said that he had “amounts of money due.” When he asked for clarification, the man said there were “amounts due related to the case,” without any details, and he was told to go to a police station in Manama, the capital.
“I was surprised,” al-Jamri said. “What are these amounts? I mean, I hadn’t had any problems; there was nothing against me. I was approaching two years [since my release].”
Burwase said the papers linked with his and the rest of the men’s pardons indicated that they had been cleared of “everything, completely,” and that the authorities had also issued him a “good conduct certificate,” meaning there were no outstanding cases against him.
On June 16, after hearing from the authorities, 14 of the pardoned men, including the 3 interviewed, wrote to the crown prince, stating their belief that the royal pardon had “brought to an end all consequences arising from the judgments,” including the financial penalties. “This understanding was reinforced by the official measures that followed the pardon and were intended to reintegrate us into society, including government directives to provide training and employment opportunities to those covered by the pardon.”
In the letter, the men asked the authorities to recognize the effect of the pardon on the outstanding penalties, halt enforcement measures that could result in their return to prison, clarify their legal position, and ensure that those released under the pardon were not imprisoned simply because they could not afford to pay any outstanding fines.
The men received no response. But in July and August, the authorities arrested 8 of the 33 convicted in 2016 and pardoned in 2024. Among them, three were signatories to the letter.
Fateel said that on August 16, officials contacted him regarding the fine. He had asked them to provide documentation establishing the amount to be paid and whether he should go to the police station to discuss the matter. He said that the officials had told him to instead contact the public prosecution and the sentence enforcement judge, who oversees sentencing for convicted individuals.
He said that plainclothes officers awakened him at approximately 5:45 a.m. on August 18, banging loudly on his bedroom door. He said they immediately arrested him and took him away without explaining the reason for his arrest or presenting a warrant. He said that when they were headed to the East Riffa Police Station, an officer told him that he had been arrested because of “a fine.”
In 2022, the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention found Fateel’s original detention arbitrary and therefore unlawful, concluding that the proceedings involved serious violations of international fair-trial standards. They called for his immediate and unconditional release. The findings covered the Jau Prison case now being used by authorities to rearrest him. By the time he was finally released in 2024, Fateel had spent 11 years in arbitrary detention.
Fateel, along with many others who had been pardoned, now faces imprisonment again for fines that he should not in fact be liable for and cannot afford, the groups said.
Regarding the exorbitant amount of the fine, al-Jamri said: “It would be difficult for anyone in Bahrain to pay, whether they had a case against them or not. A salary in Bahrain might be 350 dinars [a month], yet you’re asking me to pay installments of 375 dinars [every month] for two years.”
As of October 5, Bahraini authorities have continued to pursue arrests for others from the 33 people convicted in 2016 and released in 2024, based on reports from some of those who authorities have contacted.
“Bahrain’s government is going after former political prisoners released by royal pardon, giving them a difficult choice: pay huge fines or go back to prison,” said Sayed Ahmed Alwadaei, advocacy director at the Bahrain Institute for Rights and Democracy. “The EU, UK, and US rushed to applaud Bahrain for releasing political prisoners. They should now speak out and call on Bahrain to cease targeting those who were released.”
]]>
In the judgment, the Court held that Serbia had violated Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which safeguards against torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, when the Serbian courts had failed to examine Bahraini dissident Ahmed Jaafar’s complaint that he would face a risk of ill-treatment if extradited to Bahrain. The Court also held that Serbia had violated Article 34 of the Convention, which gives individuals the right to make applications to the Court, by going ahead with his extradition to Bahrain in contravention of an interim measure indicated by the Court on 21 January 2022. The Court ordered Serbia to pay EUR 9,800, plus any tax chargeable and interest in the event of a default in payment.
The decision of the Committee of Ministers records that, since the judgment, Serbia has placed a sum of money for Ahmed Jaafar in a deposit account in a domestic court. However, the Committee acknowledged his legal representatives’ argument that there are ‘difficulties in complying with the conditions for the release of the funds given the exceptional nature of [Ahmed Jaafar’s] situation’ of ongoing detention in Bahrain. Accordingly, the Committee indicated that Serbia should ‘co-operate with [his] representatives and the Secretariat to find solutions to enable the release of funds to take place without delay’.
The Committee’s decision also records ‘diplomatic steps already undertaken by the [Serbian] authorities to obtain information from the Bahraini authorities on [Ahmed Jaafar’s] current situation and to ensure that his rights under Article 3 are duly protected’. Noting Ahmed Jaafar’s legal representatives’ submissions concerning his ongoing maltreatment in Bahraini detention, the decision adds that these authorities are to ‘continue their efforts in this respect and to keep the Committee informed, to the extent possible, of any relevant developments’ as well as ‘undertake that, should they receive information that [Ahmed Jaafar] may risk treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention, they will take all possible measures within their competence to secure the effective protection of’ his rights under the Convention.
The decision also makes indications concerning general measures to be adopted by Serbia to improve the human rights situation in Serbia as relevant to the Court’s judgment. The Committee’s role in supervising the execution of the judgment under Article 46 of the Convention continues.
Sayed Ahmed Alwadaei, Director of Advocacy at the Bahrain Institute for Rights and Democracy (BIRD), commented:
‘It was very hard to hear Ahmed describing to me the degrading conditions he is living in at Jau Prison. He is stuck in a severely overcrowded cell, has repeatedly had to resort to hunger strikes just to secure basic rights, and has been in and out of solitary confinement.
This decision is an important reminder that Serbia cannot simply take Bahrain’s assurances at face value. It must face the reality of what happened after Ahmed’s unlawful extradition and do everything it can to protect him.’
Lawyers Marko Štambuk, Rodney Dixon KC, and Sebastian Bates, who represented Ahmed Jaafar before the Court and continue to do so before the Committee, added:
‘We welcome this decision of the Committee of Ministers. It reflects that, while Serbia has taken certain steps to implement the judgment of the Strasbourg Court concerning Ahmed Jaafar, there is much more to be undertaken. Serbia must do everything in its power to protect Ahmed Jaafar from violations of his rights in Bahrain. In our view, Ahmed Jaafar’s circumstances in Bahrain are such that this will likely mean in the end that Serbia must negotiate with Bahrain for his return to Serbian territory, where he was prior to his unlawful extradition in 2022. In the meantime, the Serbian authorities must be in effective contact with their Bahraini counterparts and must cooperate with us to secure payment of the whole sum ordered by the Strasbourg Court.’
]]>Restore Status, End Discrimination Against Shias with Iranian Heritage
(Beirut, June 11, 2026) –The Bahraini government on April 27, 2026 revoked the nationality of 69 citizens, including infants. All were Shia Muslims ofIranian heritage, the Bahrain Institute for Rights and Democracy (BIRD) and Human Rights Watch said today. BIRD’s research found that at least 46people, more than half of them children, were rendered stateless.
“Bahraini authorities have long discriminated against the country’s Shia majority population,” said Niku Jafarnia, Bahrain and Yemen researcher at Human Rights Watch. “But stripping people of nationality, claiming that they are citizens of a foreign country where most of them have no legal ties is an extreme escalation.”
BIRD and Human Rights Watch spoke to nine people affected and two relatives of others affected. Researchers also reviewed the Bahraini government’s related statements and decisions, as well as documents supporting the nationality of some of those affected.
Of those affected, 33 were children, including 10 toddlers, with the youngest only 19 days old, based on BIRD analysis, underscoring the arbitrary and collective nature of the measure. The majority of Bahrainis are Shia, who have long been oppressed by the Bahraini government.
The Interior Ministry stated that the people stripped of citizenship are “of non-Bahraini origin.” While all are of Iranian descent, based on BIRD’s analysis – a background shared by up to 14 percent of Bahrain’s population – many of those interviewed said that their families had been in Bahrain for several generations and did not have Iranian nationality. Supporting documents reviewed showed that families had held Bahraini nationality for several generations, one of them for over a century.
One woman, whose husband and 9-month-old baby had been stripped of citizenship and left stateless, said of her husband: “Four generations [of his family] were born in Bahrain, all of them were born in Bahrain, he is Bahraini by birth. My kid, his father, grandfather, and their great grandfather are Bahrainis.” All of those interviewed said that the authorities had changed their nationality to Iranian.
On April 28, those stripped of nationality were ordered to go to the Passport and Immigration Authority, where they said they were forced to turn in their passports, IDs, and related papers.
One man, who said he was there from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., described the scene: “They were looking at us as if we were their enemies… we waited hours without water, without food.”
He and others were forced to sign documents stating that their nationalities had been revoked, and that they would leave the country by an unspecified date. He was forced to sign these forms on behalf of his entire family, including other adults. The man added that Passport and Immigration police beat a man who refused to sign to compel his signature.
Bahraini authorities then began deporting some of them, attempting to send them to Iran but they did not succeed. Other people were sent to Turkey, but Turkish authorities forced them to return to Bahrain. Thereafter, people interviewed said, Bahraini authorities detained them in a hotel and later sent some of them to Oman.
One man said the Bahraini authorities “treat[ed] us like mafia, like criminals, just wanting to throw us out.” One official directly threatened him with imprisonment, stating “if you come back to Bahrain… you will not see the light of day again.”
Multiple families with roots in Bahrain reaching back at least two generations have been torn apart. One woman sad: “Now [our] family is separated…[my sister] was crying because she left her child in Bahrain… three weeks [earlier], we were all gathering at my family house… [Now], we are divided into four countries by force.”
The government has justified its action by citing counterterrorism efforts and regional tensions amid the US-Israel/Iran conflict. The Interior Ministrystated that officials were acting on the basis of national security, claiming that the targeted individuals “expressed sympathy for, and glorified, Iran’s sinful hostile acts, or engaged in espionage with foreign parties.”
According to BIRD’s research, five of those stripped of their citizenship were prosecuted in proceedings that reportedly failed to meet international fair trial standards. One defendant was fined and sentenced to five years in prison solely for peaceful social media posts. Two others were sentenced to life imprisonment on espionage-related charges, while two received 10-year prison sentences for allegedly “filming” and “glorifying” the Iranian attacks. The defendants were reportedly denied access to legal counsel prior to appearing before the court, a longstanding concern in Bahrain’s prosecution of political and national security cases.
The citizenship revocation comes on the heels of Bahraini authorities’ sweeping arrests of people who were exercising their right to peaceful expression amid the conflict. In some cases, Bahraini authorities have sought the death penalty, accusing the defendants of espionage.
The Bahraini government has discriminated against its Shia population for years, including by targeting Shia clerics and arresting and prosecuting human rights defenders of Shia backgrounds.
In 2019, Bahrain amended its citizenship law to allow officials to revoke citizenship based on a cabinet decision alone, removing the need for a royal decree. The changes also ended a requirement to publish the names and ID numbers of those affected, reducing transparency and making it harder to identify children stripped of citizenship.
In 2024, the Bahraini government issued a royal decree, amending the citizenship law by removing judicial oversight over citizenship revocations and classifying such decisions as sovereign acts, meaning there is no way to challenge revocation of citizenship.
Article 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, widely regarded as reflecting customary international law, states that everyone has the right to a nationality and that no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality. Article 13 of the Universal Declaration and article 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which Bahrain has ratified, guarantee the right to enter one’s own country. In 1999, the Human Rights Committee, which interprets the covenant, stated that, “’The scope of ‘his own country’ is broader than the concept ‘country of his nationality,’” and that it would apply to people who have been stripped of their nationality in violation of international law.
A United Nations report from 2013 states that, “International law… obliges States to provide for an opportunity for the meaningful review of nationality decisions, including on substantive issues.” The report states that if the citizenship of a national is revoked, “lodging an appeal should suspend the effects of the decision, such that the individual continues to enjoy nationality – and related rights – until such time as the appeal has been settled.”
Article 29 of the Arab Charter on Human Rights, which Bahrain has ratified, states that, “Every person has the right to a nationality, and no citizen shall be deprived of his nationality without a legally valid reason.”
“Close scrutiny of those accused of “threatening national security” reveals that nearly half of them are children, including 10 toddlers who are now stateless,” said Sayed Ahmed Alwadaei, advocacy director at the Bahrain Institute for Rights and Democracy. “Many families who have lived in Bahrain for generations have been forced to leave their homes and, in some cases, leave their children behind. Bahrain’s rulers have been emboldened to commit these egregious violations of international law and get away with destroying the future of innocent children because of the silence of their backers in London and Washington. They must be held accountable.”
]]>Their votes angered the King and prompted 37 of their colleagues in Parliament, including the Speaker of Parliament, to sign a petition calling for their removal.
During a parliamentary debate on 28 April, the MPs opposed a royal decree issued in 2024 that removed judicial oversight from all matters related to citizenship, classifying them as sovereign issues, and eliminated the possibility of legal challenge or appeal against citizenship revocations. The debate resulted in the approval of the 2024 royal decree, with 33 votes in favour, three against, three absent, and the Speaker not voting. The three who voted against the decree have since faced serious threats from the King, culminating today in the vote to strip them of their Parliamentary seats.
The vote came just one day after the authorities stripped 69 individuals of their citizenship on national security grounds for the government’s claims that they held “sympathy for and glorifying Iran’s sinful, hostile acts”. The mass revocation extended to the targeted individuals’ families and children, including infants. All individuals stripped of nationality in the revocation are Shia Muslims of Iranian heritage.
Two of the three MPs who later voted against the decree spoke in Parliament.
In a session published on the Parliament YouTube channel, Abdulnabi Salman emphasized the necessity of oversight in a just government, stating that “Always, the existence of oversight over any of the authorities would achieve justice and a sense of fairness and trust.” He also spoke out against collective punishments, adding, “It is true that whoever harms this country must be punished, but punishments must not be collective, God forbid, or be taken as reactions, because the matter relates to the fate, future, and trust of the people in the system and the judiciary.”
Mamdooh Al Saleh argued against the extension of the punishment to family members and stated: “…but what is the fault of the children and the grandchildren? They may have no guilt; they did not participate in their father’s crime or mistake.”
Three days after the debate, and following a meeting with UAE leaders, Bahrain’s King issued remarks to the press accusing the MPs of siding with “traitors” and warning that they must apologise to “the people” or face the same fate as those they were supporting: the stripping of their citizenship and deportation. His furious rhetoric suggests his personal views, in particular regarding the 2024 royal decree that he issued himself, and raises serious concerns of authoritarian abuse of power.
The King’s comments were welcomed by six Arab states, with the UAE and Kuwait expressing support immediately, then followed by Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Jordan.
Also today, Bahrain’s National Press Day, a journalist from Al-Ayyam was barred from entry to the parliamentary session due to a personal objection from the Speaker of the House of Representatives regarding a recent article headline.
Bahrain is ranked among the worst countries in the world for press freedom, placing 170th out of 180 countries in the latest ranking by Reporters Without Borders.
In response to today’s vote, Sayed Ahmed Alwadaei, Director of Advocacy at the Bahrain Institute for Rights and Democracy, said:
“No elected representative should face the threat of deportation and citizenship revocation for casting a vote against the King’s wishes. That they were forced to apologise to the King – and that their apology did not save them from destroying their career and future – exposes the reality of political life in Bahrain: under dictatorship, dissent is equivalent to political suicide.”
]]>The Court of Appeal confirmed Mr Sharif’s conviction over comments made during a media interview in Beirut criticising Arab governments’ failure to defend Palestinians and framing their stance as a ‘surrender’. While the court maintained the guilty verdict, it ruled that the remainder of the six-month prison sentence would be replaced with a non-custodial measure, leading to his release from Jau Prison.
Although Mr Sharif is expected to be released, pending approval by the Public Prosecution Office, the court expressly affirmed the underlying conviction and adopted a legal rationale that further entrenches the criminalisation of peaceful political expression in Bahrain. The conviction itself continues to rest on provisions of the Penal Code that are incompatible with international standards on freedom of expression.
Commenting on Mr Sharif’s conviction, Sayed Ahmed Alwadaei, advocacy director at Bahrain Institute for Rights and Democracy, stated: “Ebrahim Sharif’s release is a relief, but it does not erase the fact that he was imprisoned for peacefully exercising his right to free expression. His detention was an assault on freedom of speech. Bahrain must abolish its draconian laws criminalising free speech.”
The appeals court’s decision to replace imprisonment with an alternative punishment mitigates the immediate harm of detention but fails to remedy the fundamental injustice of the conviction itself. Mr Sharif was punished for expressing political opinions on matters of public interest, conduct that is fully protected under international law.
Fundamental flaws remain unaddressed
The trial court’s judgment, now left substantively intact by the appeals court, remains flawed in three key respects.
Mr Sharif was prosecuted under Articles 165, 215, and 92 of the Bahraini Penal Code, provisions that are routinely misused to punish peaceful speech. Article 165 criminalises anyone who “expressly incites others to develop hatred or hostility towards the system of government.” Article 215 targets a person who “offends in public a foreign country or on [sic] international organization based in the State of Bahrain or its president or representative.” Both carry a prison sentence and a fine which cannot exceed 200 dinars, and are vaguely worded offences whose misuse to suppress legitimate political expression has been repeatedly identified by United Nations human rights mechanisms. The UN Special Representative on human rights defenders has warned that prosecutions under Article 165 for allegedly “encouraging hatred of the State” or “distributing falsehoods and rumours” frequently risked suppressing lawful expression. In 2018, in its concluding observations on Bahrain’s compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the Human Rights Committee noted its concern for Bahrain’s imposition of serious restrictions on freedom of expression and “the large number of arrests and prosecutions of individuals criticizing State authorities or political figures.”
The judgment’s application of these provisions to Mr Sharif’s case is flawed in three specific respects.
First, the judgment reflects a profound misunderstanding of freedom of expression. Mr Sharif’s comments were political opinions criticising the foreign policy positions of Arab governments in relation to Palestine. The court treated these as criminal acts, applying Article 168’s prohibition on “false news” to what were plainly political value judgments. Calling a government “complicit” or “silent” is a political characterisation, not a factual claim capable of being proven true or false. The court’s reasoning collapses the distinction between opinion and fact, effectively criminalising political criticism itself.
Second, the judgment systematically overstates what Mr Sharif actually said, distorting his words beyond any possible interpretation. Mr Sharif called for boycotts, public pressure, and political change through public opinion, all of which are forms of peaceful civic action. Yet the court characterised these statements as incitement capable of “destabilising security and stability” and “undermining the longstanding social fabric,” and asserted a “direct link” to the likelihood of violence without identifying any evidence whatsoever of actual or threatened violence. The judgment simply assumes that calls for peaceful political pressure are inherently destabilising, a standard that would criminalise virtually all political speech.
Third, the judgment adopts a fundamentally flawed legal premise by asserting that the public and media nature of Mr Sharif’s statements removes them from the protection of freedom of expression. The court held that because the statements were made openly through a media outlet, they acquired a “criminal character” and fell outside constitutional and international safeguards. This reasoning is legally unsustainable. Freedom of expression exists precisely to protect public speech, including speech disseminated through the media. Political opinions expressed in interviews, broadcasts, or publications are at the very core of protected expression, not an exception to it. To treat media dissemination as a basis for criminal liability reverses the logic of free expression law and effectively renders all public political speech vulnerable to punishment, nullifying the right itself. Under international human rights law, the form, platform, or reach of expression cannot justify its criminalisation where the content is peaceful and political in nature.
Mr Sharif’s conviction demonstrates Bahrain’s continued failure to heed international recommendations and to bring its legal framework into line with its obligations.
Pattern of repression and conditions of detention
Mr Sharif’s arrest at Bahrain International Airport marks the tenth time he has faced detention, interrogation, or prosecution since 2011 for exercising his right to free expression. His continued imprisonment reflects a broader pattern in which authorities use vague speech offences to silence opposition figures, journalists, and human rights defenders.
During his pretrial detention at Dry Dock, Mr Sharif was held in appalling conditions marked by severe overcrowding and poor hygiene. Despite his advanced age (68) and medical conditions, his family reported that Mr Sharif was confined in unsanitary, overcrowded cells reportedly infested with bed bugs. Concerns regarding systemic deficiencies within Bahraini prisons have been raised by the UN Committee against Torture, which in 2025 highlighted persistent reports of overcrowding, insanitary conditions, and serious shortcomings in prison medical services, including at Dry Dock Detention Centre. The Committee warned that such conditions pose heightened risks to elderly and medically vulnerable detainees.
Violations of international free expression standards
Mr Sharif’s conviction violates Article 19 of the ICCPR, which protects the right to hold opinions and to impart information and ideas of all kinds. The UN Human Rights Committee has explicitly stated that “imprisonment is never an appropriate penalty for defamation” and has called on Bahrain to decriminalise criticism of governments. Mr Sharif’s case exemplifies Bahrain’s continued failure to bring its laws and practices into compliance with these standards.
]]>Last week, leading human rights organisations filed a request for UK sanctions against Bahrain’s Interior Minister, General Shaikh Rashid bin Abdullah Al Khalifa, under the UK’s Global Human Rights Sanctions Regulations 2020. The request and supporting evidence were submitted to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office by Deighton Pierce Glynn solicitors on behalf of the Gulf Centre for Human Rights (GCHR) and the Bahrain Institute for Rights and Democracy (BIRD). The request is also supported by Human Rights First. It seeks targeted financial and travel sanctions against the Interior Minister for his role in serious rights abuses against the Bahraini people.
The request comes as Bahrain marks the 15th anniversary of its 2011 pro-democracy uprising on 14 February. The impact of the Bahraini Government’s brutal crackdown continues to haunt the country, with leading pro-democracy figures remaining jailed since 2011 following sham trials and confessions made under torture.
The NGO coalition is calling for the Interior Minister to be held accountable for his role in serious and systematic human rights violations in Bahrain, including allegations of torture and arbitrary detention of political dissidents and human rights defenders. Documented abuses include physical beatings, the use of torture devices, sexual violence, and rape. The submission sets out evidence of the Minister’s responsibility for widespread abuses carried out by Bahrain’s Ministry of Interior since 2004, encompassing the violent suppression of the 2011 uprising and the years of systematic persecution that followed.
The evidence, which documents a pattern of torture in Bahrain over the last decade, presents a significant test of the UK Government’s commitment to upholding human rights standards, particularly regarding human rights abuses that are linked to close allies of the UK. It comes amid growing concern that the UK’s deepening security cooperation with Bahrain – despite persistent and credible evidence of human rights violations – risks shielding abusive officials and undermining Britain’s own legal and moral obligations.
In October 2025, Bahrain’s Interior Minister visited the UK and met with Durham Constabulary to strengthen police training partnerships. Accompanied by Ambassador Shaikh Fawaz bin Mohammed Al Khalifa, he met Chief Constable Rachel Bacon to discuss collaboration in forensics, investigation, and rehabilitation programs. The visit raised concerns regarding the UK Government’s engagement with a ministry accused of systematic torture; by providing police training to General Al Khalifa, the UK risks legitimising the Interior Ministry’s practices.
MPs call for sanctions
At the same time, on 09 February 2026, a group of cross-party MPs tabled an Early Day Motion (EDM) supporting the call for sanctions against Bahrain’s Interior Minister and decrying the Government of Bahrain’s crackdown on pro-democracy activists. The MPs decried human rights abuses in Bahrain and called “for the imposition of Magnitsky sanctions against individuals responsible for serious human rights violations, including the Interior Minister, Rashid bin Abdullah Al Khalifa”. They further raised concerns that millions of pounds of UK public funds continue to be spent on technical assistance to Bahrain.
Rights groups calls
Commenting, Khalid Ibrahim, GCHR’s Executive Director, said: “It’s impossible to advance human rights in Bahrain without ending impunity and enforcing accountability for all the massive human rights violations that were committed by perpetrators whose crimes have been well documented by the human rights movement. We always have to remember the plight of our Founding Director Abdulhadi Al-Khawaja who was severely tortured to the level that he needed dozens of medical interventions, yet the perpetrators are not only still free in the streets of Bahrain but some of them were promoted. This culture should be ended and as such we welcome the news of the motion by British MPs to hold the Minister accountable and call on the British government to follow suit and take action.”
Commenting, Sayed Ahmed Alwadaei, BIRD’s Advocacy Director, stated: “It is hard to mark the 15th anniversary of Bahrain’s pro-democracy uprising without remembering the suffering of thousands of Bahrainis, some of whom continue to languish behind bars after being tortured by Rashid Al Khalifa’s officials at the Interior Ministry in 2011. Under his watch, Bahrainis were murdered under torture while in custody. It is shameful that the red carpet is rolled out for him in Britain while his victims rot in Bahraini jails.”
Commenting, Uzra Zeya, Human Rights First’s President and CEO, said, “Fifteen years after Bahrain’s peaceful pro-democracy protests began, both the U.K. and U.S. governments need to do much more to address the persistence of torture, cruel treatment, and the arbitrary detention of dissidents and human rights defenders in Bahrain’s prisons. These governments must not turn a blind eye to abuses by their close security partner. Targeted sanctions would be an important and long-overdue step toward accountability.”
]]>Bahrain Public Prosecution issued a statement confirming the sentence.
Mr Sharif is a prominent democratic advocate, economist, and former Secretary-General of Bahrain’s National Democratic Action Society.
His conviction arises from a media interview conducted in Beirut, during which he called on Arab peoples and governments to support Palestinians and to end their ties with, and complicity in, Israel’s actions.
Commenting on Mr Sharif’s sentence, Sayed Ahmed Alwadaei, advocacy director at Bahrain Institute for Rights and Democracy: “This sentence sets a chilling precedent: a prominent public figure is being criminalised for standing with Palestine and challenging governments that have normalised relations amid Israel’s genocide. It signals a grave escalation in Bahrain’s assault on free expression and marks a new low for the Bahraini government.”
Sharif was arrested at Bahrain International Airport on 12 November 2025 upon his arrival from Beirut, where he had attended the Arab National Conference. Bahrain’s Interior Ministry published a statement later that day stating that he had been arrested for “spreading false news on social media and uttering phrases offensive to sisterly Arab states and their leadership.” The next day, Bahrain’s Office of Public Prosecution stated on Instagram that they had ordered his detention while the charges against him were investigated.
On 19 November 2025, Human Rights Watch and the Bahrain Institute for Rights and Democracy issued a statement calling for his immediate release.
This is the 10th time that Bahraini authorities have arrested, interrogated, or prosecuted Sharif since 2011, all on the basis of exercising his right to peaceful assembly and speech.