Download the full report - Human Rights Watch
Download the full report - Human Rights Watch
Download the full report - Human Rights Watch
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
<strong>Human</strong> <strong>Rights</strong> <strong>Watch</strong> is currently preparing a <strong>report</strong> on <strong>the</strong> conditions of migrant workers in<br />
Qatar’s construction industry, in light of <strong>the</strong> extensive construction needed to provide facilities<br />
and infrastructure for <strong>the</strong> 2022 World Cup. We have enclosed a summary of relevant research<br />
findings from our upcoming <strong>report</strong> for your reference. Our research examined <strong>the</strong> construction<br />
industry as a whole and found that abusive practices of <strong>the</strong> kind we have documented<br />
elsewhere in <strong>the</strong> Gulf are also prevalent in Qatar. As described in <strong>the</strong> enclosed summary, we<br />
found that key factors trap migrant workers in Qatar in exploitative jobs: <strong>the</strong> exorbitant<br />
recruitment fees that nearly all of <strong>the</strong> workers we interviewed had paid in order to obtain <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
jobs; and <strong>the</strong> restrictive kafala (sponsorship) system that prevents workers from changing jobs<br />
or leaving <strong>the</strong> country without a sponsoring employer’s permission. In addition, <strong>the</strong>re is an<br />
inadequate legal and regulatory framework to protect workers’ rights. Most notably, Qatari law<br />
prohibits migrant workers from forming trade unions, in violation of <strong>the</strong>se workers’ rights to<br />
freedom of association and collective bargaining, and <strong>the</strong> government fails to enforce<br />
adequately current laws that, at least on paper, are meant to protect worker rights. In some<br />
cases, <strong>the</strong> exploitation and coercive circumstances in which workers found <strong>the</strong>mselves<br />
amounted to conditions of forced labor or human trafficking, as defined under international law.<br />
We are aware that <strong>the</strong> Aspire Zone is home to Al Khalifa International Stadium, a proposed site<br />
for World Cup matches included in Qatar’s winning bid. We note that, as described on <strong>the</strong><br />
company’s website, Aspire Logistics is “responsible for supporting <strong>the</strong> activities of Aspire Zone<br />
by…building, operating and managing high quality international standard sport facilities,” as<br />
per your website, and that Emiri Decree number 1 for <strong>the</strong> year 2008 designated Aspire Logistics<br />
“<strong>the</strong> custodian company of <strong>the</strong> sports precinct.” We <strong>the</strong>refore wish to draw your attention to <strong>the</strong><br />
fact that we interviewed construction workers working at <strong>the</strong> Aspire Zone who alleged that <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
rights were not respected. The workers we interviewed at <strong>the</strong> Aspire Zone did not claim to be in<br />
<strong>the</strong> employ of Aspire Logistics and asked us not to identify <strong>the</strong>ir employer for fear of reprisal.<br />
We cite <strong>the</strong> workers’ interviews in our forthcoming <strong>report</strong> as illustrative of <strong>the</strong> issues that arise<br />
in <strong>the</strong> construction sector in Qatar, including in connection with World Cup-related work sites.<br />
In this case, we interviewed construction workers we met at <strong>the</strong> Aspire Zone during our June<br />
2011 visit to Qatar, including a group of seven Nepali workers who said that <strong>the</strong>ir employer had<br />
not paid <strong>the</strong>m for three and a half months, and that <strong>the</strong>y wanted to return home to Nepal. They<br />
said that <strong>the</strong>ir sponsoring employer demanded money in exchange for granting <strong>the</strong>m<br />
permission to leave, and that because he held <strong>the</strong>ir passports, <strong>the</strong>y were reluctant to quit and<br />
attempt to return home. All of <strong>the</strong> workers had paid recruitment fees, and none had <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
passports, though <strong>the</strong>y said <strong>the</strong>y had asked <strong>the</strong>ir employer to return <strong>the</strong>se documents.<br />
135 HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH | JUNE 2012