a. Extrajudicial Killings

There were no reports the government or its agents committed arbitrary or unlawful killings during the year.

b. Coercion in Population Control

There were no reports of coerced abortion or involuntary sterilization on the part of government authorities.

a. Freedom of the Press

The constitution provided for freedom of expression, including for members of the press and other media, in accordance with the law, but the government limited these rights. Self-censorship was prevalent.

Citizens did not regularly discuss sensitive political and religious matters in public, but they did so in private and exercised caution on social media. The law prohibited criticism of the emir. Members of the majority foreign population exercised self-censorship on sensitive topics.

The cybercrime law prohibited any online activity that threatened the safety of the state, its general order, or local or international peace. It also criminalized the spread of “false news,” forced internet providers to block objectionable content, and banned third-party publication of personal or family information. Violation of the cybercrime law could lead to a sentence of up to three years in prison and a substantial fine. The Cyber Crime Department at the Ministry of Interior interrogated four citizens in July for posting a video on social media in which they made comments regarding certain tribes. The department accused the four individuals of spreading hatred and sedition, and referred them to the Public Prosecution Office for further investigation.

The law restricted the publication of information deemed blasphemous or defamatory to the Abrahamic faiths. The law penalized by up to three years in prison damaging, removing, or expressing hatred and contempt toward the country’s flag, the Gulf Cooperation Council flag, or the flag of any international organization or authority. The law also criminalized displaying a damaged or discolored national flag, or changing the flag by adding photographs, text, or designs to it.

The constitution provided for freedom of expression and scientific research. Instructors at Qatar University noted they sometimes exercised self-censorship. There were occasional government restrictions on cultural events, including denial of permits without explanation, and some groups organizing cultural events reported they exercised self-censorship.

Censorship by Governments, Military, Intelligence, or Police Forces, Criminal Groups, or Armed Extremist or Rebel Groups

The law included restrictive procedures on the establishment of newspaper outlets and granted the government the power to close outlets and confiscate assets of a publication. Members of the ruling family or proprietors who enjoyed close ties to government officials owned all print media. Both private and government-owned television and radio reflected government views, although call-in shows allowed for some citizen criticism of government ministries and policies. While broadcast media generally did not criticize authorities or the country’s policies, specific ministries and even individual ministers were sometimes targets of criticism in print media. The government owned and partially funded the Doha-based al-Jazeera satellite television network. The government also partially funded other media outlets operating in the country. Some observers and former al-Jazeera employees alleged the government influenced the content produced by that news outlet.

The government reviewed, censored, or banned local and foreign newspapers, magazines, films, internet sited, and books for objectionable political, sexual, and religious content, as well as vulgar and obscene language. The Qatar Media Corporation, the Ministry of Culture, and customs officials censored material. Journalists and publishers self-censored due to political and economic pressures when reporting on government policies or material that could be deemed denigrating to Islam, the ruling family, and relations with neighboring states.

b. Worker Rights

Freedom of Association and Collective Bargaining

The law did not provide for the right of workers to form and join independent unions, conduct legal strikes, and bargain collectively.

The law permitted the establishment of voluntary “joint committees” with an equal number of worker and management representatives to deal with a limited number of workplace problems. Foreign workers could join these joint labor-management committees. The law offered a means to file collective disputes. If disputes were not settled internally between the employees and employer, the Ministry of Labor could mediate a solution or refer to a labor dispute settlement committee. A 2017 agreement between the ministry and the International Labor Organization (ILO) included provisions to create these committees with ILO supervision and assistance. Following the formation of joint committees, the ILO provided extensive training to the committee members on how to manage committees, establish open channels of communication with workers and management, and submit complaints to the competent authorities. There were documented reports of onerous, six-month-plus timelines for Labor Dispute Settlement Committees to settle labor complaints.

The law required approval by the Ministry of Labor for worker organizations to affiliate with groups outside the country. The government did not respect freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining outside of the joint committees.

Due to the absence of independent trade unions, there were no reports of government enforcement of laws respecting their establishment or operation. The labor code allowed for only one trade union, the General Union of Workers of Qatar (General Union), which was composed of representative groups known as general committees for workers in various trades or industries. Trade or industry committees were composed of worker committees at the individual firm level. The law excluded all noncitizens and government employees from the right to join general committees that then consolidated into the General Union, effectively banning these workers from bargaining collectively or legally striking. The General Union did not operate during the year.

Employees could not freely practice collective bargaining, and there were no workers under collective bargaining contracts. Although the law recognized the right to strike for members of the General Union, restrictive conditions made the likelihood of a legal strike extremely remote. The law required approval for a strike by three-fourths of the general committee of the workers in the trade or the industry, and potential strikers also were required to exhaust a lengthy dispute resolution procedure before a lawful strike could be called. Civil servants and domestic workers did not have the right to strike; the law also prohibited strikes at public utilities and health or security service facilities, including in the gas, petroleum, and transportation sectors. The Complaint Department of the Ministry of Labor, in coordination with the Ministry of Interior, had to preauthorize all strikes, including approval of the time and place. The Ministry of Interior received 5,218 complaints of violations committed against domestic workers in 2024, up from 1,391 in 2023, mostly related to delayed or nonpayment of wages.

The ILO had an office in Doha. Several Global Union Federations, including Building and Wood Workers’ International, the International Domestic Workers Federation, the International Trade Union Federation, and the International Transport Workers Federation, had official representatives in the country and focused on labor rights with the permission of the government.

Forced or Compulsory Labor

See the Department of State’s annual Trafficking in Persons Report at https://www.state.gov/trafficking-in-persons-report/.

Acceptable Work Conditions

Wage and Hour Laws

The country had a minimum wage law, but according to the ILO and Amnesty International, it was too low for workers to maintain an adequate standard of living or repay recruitment fees. The labor law provided for a 48-hour workweek with a 24-hour rest period. The labor law and provisions for acceptable conditions of work, including overtime pay provisions, did not apply to workers in the public sector or agriculture, or to domestic workers. Some employers did not pay workers for overtime or annual leave. Penalties for abuses were less than those for similar crimes, such as fraud.

Occupational Safety and Health

Occupational safety and health (OSH) standards were appropriate for the main industries in the country, such as construction, but the government did not always enforce them. Responsibility for laws related to acceptable conditions of work fell primarily to the Ministry of Labor as well as to the Ministry of Municipality and the Ministry of Public Health. The government proactively identified unsafe work conditions and regulated workplace safety. The law did not provide workers the right to remove themselves from a hazardous workplace without jeopardizing their employment, except for a regulation allowing workers to leave worksites in case of heat stress. Authorities did not effectively provide protection to employees exercising this right.

Although the employer-based sponsorship system no longer required exit permits or employers’ no objection certificates for employees to change jobs, it still gave employers broad control over foreign workers’ lives. The government did not consistently implement reforms to the system or provide foreign workers reliable access to justice.

Media sources, Human Rights Watch, and the nongovernmental organization (NGO) Migrant Rights reported most employers still required no-objection certificates, which were included in official job change requests in the Ministry of Labor portal. Media also reported several instances of employers retaliating against employees who initiated a transfer by canceling their visa or filing an absconding charge, rendering the worker out of legal status and at increased risk of exploitation, detention, or deportation. Employers could request the Ministry of Interior require that up to 5 percent of the company’s employees obtain approval before leaving the country due to their type of work. These workers who were still required to seek their employers’ permission to leave the country could request an exemption from a grievance committee jointly operated by the Ministry of Interior and the Ministry of Labor in cases where an employer refused to grant permission. According to government statistics, the grievance committee received 50 requests during the year, of which 35 were approved, six were rejected, and nine were under review.

Wage, Hour, and OSH Enforcement

The government did not effectively enforce wage, overtime, and OSH laws in all sectors. Despite a system to monitor for payment abnormalities (the Wage Protection System), workers reported cases of wage theft and difficulty obtaining restitution of wages through mediation or courts. Working conditions for citizens were generally adequate because government agencies and the major private-sector companies employing them generally followed the relevant laws.

The lack of full enforcement of the minimum wage law exposed migrant workers, especially domestic workers, to potential abuse.

The government restricted work during the hottest hours of the day during the summer, and general restrictions related to temperature during the rest of the day as well. Employers often ignored working-hour restrictions and other laws with respect to domestic workers and unskilled laborers, the majority of whom were migrants. Penalties for violations of OSH laws were less than those for crimes such as negligence. The government took limited action to prevent abuse. The Ministry of Labor reported 351 instances of violations over summer work hour restrictions between June 1 and September 4.

If a company did not bring conditions up to standard within one month of being notified of the need for action, the Ministry of Labor imposed fines, blacklisted the company, and on occasion referred the matter to the public prosecutor for action. Blacklisting referred to an administrative hold freezing government services such as processing new visa applications from a company or individual. Firms had to pay a moderate fine to be removed from the list, even if the dispute was resolved, and the ministry reserved the right to keep companies on the list as a punitive measure after the fine was paid.

Ministry of Labor personnel were in charge of labor law enforcement and conducted inspection visits to work and labor housing sites. Officials from the ILO joined labor inspectors on several inspections. Employers in most categories had to pay their employees electronically via the Wage Protection System to provide a digital audit trail for the Ministry of Labor. Employers who failed to pay their workers faced penalties, but the government did not effectively enforce these laws, and penalties were less than those for similar crimes. Infractions of wage, overtime, and OSH standards were relatively common, especially in sectors employing foreign workers in which working conditions were often poor. The government served eviction notices to property owners whose residential and commercial buildings were not up to code. Throughout the year international media reported the existence of abusive working conditions, including work-related deaths of young foreign workers, particularly in the construction and delivery sectors.

The government prosecuted business owners and executives for suspected labor law infractions. The Ministry of Labor, the Ministry of Interior, and the National Human Rights Committee conducted training sessions and distributed multilingual, written explanations of migrant workers’ rights under local labor and sponsorship laws. Compliance by employers was lacking in attaching contract terms and rapid access to data when addressing labor disputes.

The law prohibited employers from withholding workers’ passports and penalized employers who did so, but noncitizen community leaders and officials from labor-exporting countries stated passport confiscation remained a widespread problem with insufficient enforcement of penalties. Employers housed many unskilled foreign laborers in cramped, dirty, and hazardous conditions, often without running water, electricity, or adequate food.

Domestic workers often faced unacceptable working conditions. Many such workers frequently worked seven days a week and more than 12 hours a day with few or no holidays, no overtime pay, and limited means to redress grievances. Some employers denied domestic workers food or access to a telephone, including their own cell phones, according to news reports and foreign embassy officials. NGOs found that foreign workers faced legal obstacles and lengthy legal processes that prevented them from seeking redress for abuses and exploitative conditions. Noncitizen community leaders also highlighted migrant workers’ continued hesitation to report their plight due to fear of reprisals. This included threats by employers to report workers as “absconding” and not renew local identification documents, forcing workers out of legal status and raising their risk of being deported.

The size of the informal economy was estimated to be 16.5 percent. The government did not enforce labor laws in the informal sector, particularly for domestic workers.

c. Disappearance and Abduction

Disappearance

There were no reports of enforced disappearances by or on behalf of government authorities.

Prolonged Detention without Charges

The constitution prohibited arbitrary arrest and detention and provided for the right of persons to challenge the lawfulness of their arrest or detention in court. The government generally observed these requirements.

The law permitted the prime minister to extend pretrial detention indefinitely in cases of threats to national security and to adjudicate complaints involving such detentions. The state security service could arrest and detain suspects for up to 30 days without referral to the public prosecutor.

Citizens and residents reported instances of arbitrary detention by law enforcement.

Labor laws permitted employers to report “absconding” laborers (referring to employee failure to report for work without notification or explanation). International rights groups reported several cases of employers reporting employees fleeing abusive working conditions as “absconders,” leading to arrests, detention, and deportation. International human rights groups also reported cases of migrant workers being arrested after their employers filed false absconding reports as a form of reprisal for complaining of working conditions. The Ministry of Interior’s Search and Follow-Up Department reported during the year that it dropped absconding charges against 2,554 expatriate workers in the first 10 months of 2023, without providing further details.

d. Violations in Religious Freedom

See the Department of State’s annual International Religious Freedom Report at .

e. Trafficking in Persons

See the Department of State’s annual Trafficking in Persons Report at https://www.state.gov/trafficking-in-persons-report/.

a. Torture and Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

The constitution and law prohibited torture and other inhuman or degrading treatment and punishment, and there were no credible reports government officials employed them.

b. Protection of Children

Child Labor

The law prohibited and criminalized all the worst forms of child labor and provided for the protection of children from exploitation in the workplace, including limitations on working hours, occupational safety, and health restrictions. The law set the minimum age for employment at 16 and stipulated children between ages 16 and 18 could work with parental or guardian permission. Children could not work more than six hours a day or more than 36 hours a week. Employers had to provide the Ministry of Labor with the names and occupations of their child employees and obtain permission from the Ministry of Education and Higher Education to hire a child. The Education Ministry prohibited the employment of children in jobs judged dangerous to their health, safety, or morals. The government generally enforced the applicable laws, but penalties for violations were not commensurate with those for analogous serious crimes, such as kidnapping. There were no confirmed reports during the year of the worst forms of child labor.

Child Marriage

By law the minimum age for marriage was 18 for boys and 16 for girls. The law did not permit marriage of persons younger than these ages except with consent from the legal guardian and with permission from a judge. The government generally enforced the law.

c. Protection to Refugees

The government cooperated with the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees in providing protection and assistance to refugees and to assist refugees in other countries.

Provision of First Asylum

The law provided for the granting of asylum or refugee status. A committee within the Ministry of Interior handled asylum requests. If granted asylum, the asylee and that individual’s family could access a range of free services provided by the government, including travel documents, jobs, monthly allowances, medical and educational services, and housing.

d. Acts of Antisemitism and Antisemitic Incitement

The country did not have an indigenous Jewish community, and there was no official data on the number of Jewish foreign residents in the country. Cartoons, opinion articles, and certain news coverage in local newspapers and other regional media outlets periodically carried antisemitic content. In July, the Arabic daily Al-Sharq newspaper published an op-ed titled “Jews are the Most Hostile to the Believers.” The author condemned Jews as “unfaithful” persons who espoused “deception, malice, hatred, and cowardice.”

For further information on incidents of antisemitism in the country, whether or not those incidents were motivated by religion, and for reporting on the ability of Jews to exercise freedom of religion or belief, see the Department of State’s annual International Religious Freedom Report at https://www.state.gov/religiousfreedomreport/.