8. On the other hand, the “non-conviction” requirement mentioned in paragraph (3) of the above text is there to protect the worker and ensure that he/she is not subjected to assault, which is a condition with preventive nature. However, such protection may be subject to violation should the declaration submitted by the owner of the household prove later to be invalid, and that it is contrary to reality, which contradicts the preventive nature of the condition. Therefore, the NIHR would prefer to exempt the owner of the household from submitting the declaration, on condition that the Authority assumes full responsibility for verifying that his/her criminal record is free of an assault case in which he was convicted as the owner of the household against the worker. Hence, the NIHR agrees with what is stated in Article (6) of the draft law, except for paragraphs (1) and (3) as detailed above. 9. Article (12) of the draft law stipulates that, “(a) The worker shall be obliged to: 1. Carry out domestic work with honesty and sincerity. 2. Respect the privacy of the household in which he/ she works and preserve the property of the owner of the house and the contents of the house. 3. Keep secrets known to him/her from his work. 4. Respect the prevailing customs and traditions of the society. 5. Inform the owner of the household before departing, leaving, or being absent from the house. (b) If it is proved that the worker has caused the loss or damage of tools or materials owned or possessed by the owner of the household, or that were in the custody of the worker, and the act was caused deliberately or due to serious error, the owner of the household is entitled to deduct from the worker’s wages the value of the lost or damaged items or the value of repair. In case of disagreement between the owner of the household and the worker, the issue shall be referred to the Workers Affairs Committee stipulated in Article (15) of this law. (c) In the event of escaping from the house, without the owner of the household being the cause of such, the worker shall bear all the expenses incurred by the owner of the household in addition to the cost of returning to his/her country. (d) The worker shall pay the value of the ticket to return to his/her country if he/she wishes to leave the Kingdom for any reason whatsoever.” 10. The NIHR considers that the above article has summed up the obligations of the worker against the employer (the owner of the household). However, the listing in clause (c) is not sufficient to determine what expenses the worker must pay back to the owner of the household if he/she quits work. It is not clear whether it means the expenses of recruitment and employment only, or beyond, especially that a breach of contractual obligations entails the breaching party to compensate the other party, when necessary, which inherently includes the lost gains and the loss incurred by the owner of the household. 11. The text of clause (d) raises the question about the extent to which a worker’s desire to travel is relevant and, accordingly, bear the cost of the ticket. This is in fact contrary to the provision of Article (21) of the law, which stipulates, “The worker is prohibited from leaving the Kingdom without the permission of the owner of the household or the office, as the case may be. The Minister of Interior, in coordination with the Minister, shall issue a decision on the terms and procedures for workers’ permits to enter the Kingdom and the procedures for their departure.” In order to address the discrepancy between the texts of the two Articles to guarantee the right of 19