9. Thus, no individual may in any event be arbitrarily denied of his right to enter his own country. The Human Rights Committee points out that the concept of “arbitrariness” provided for in Paragraph (4) of Article (12) of the International Covenant applies to any action by the State, whether any legislative, administrative or judicial action. Any intervention to prevent or restrict the individual from returning, even if by the rule of law, must be in conformity with the provisions of the International Covenant. 10. In practice, NIHR identified with concern a number of cases of banning travel by air and land despite not being summoned by any judicial body. While NIHR appreciates the circumstances in the Kingdom, it notes that travel ban without a legal provision or a court order is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution and the obligations of the Kingdom under the international and regional human rights conventions. 11. With respect to the right of residents to leave the Kingdom, NIHR received complaints from foreign detainees, who claimed their continued detention despite clearing their criminal penalties, and the failure of the competent authority, represented by the Ministry of the Interior (Citizenship, Passports and Residence Affairs) to enforce the deportation from the Kingdom penalty issued against them. NIHR, following receipt of these complaints, addressed the Ministry of Interior, which indicated that there are judicial orders issued by civil courts involving financial claims that led to preventing them from travel, and thus, the the part related to deportation was not possible to be enforced. It also stated that it has addressed the Supreme Judicial Council to look into the possibility of enforcing the deportation decision. ‫اﻟﺘﻘﺮﻳﺮ اﻟﺴﻨﻮي اﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ‬ ‫ﻟﻠﻤﺆﺳﺴﺔ اﻟﻮﻃﻨﻴﺔ ﻟﺤﻘﻮق اﻧﺴﻨﺎم‬ ‫ ـ ﻣﻤﻠﻜﺔ اﻟﺒﺤﺮﻳﻦ‬2015 ‫ﻟﻌﺎم‬ 12. NIHR, in continuation of its efforts in this regard, addressed the Supreme Judicial Council to consider these judicial orders. It was found that the consideration of the possibility of implementing the deportation decision falls within the competence of the punishment enforcement judge. However, this situation is inconsistent with the provisions of Article No. 11 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which states that: “No one shall be imprisoned merely on the ground of inability to fulfill a contractual obligation”. The travel ban decision is the result of the inability to meet this financial obligation. 13. NIHR appreciates the Ministry of Interior efforts to resolve the matter. It stresses the need for the Supreme Judicial Council to address this matter in line with the rights of residents and the interests of the local concerned parties, without prejudice to the Kingdom obligations under the relevant international treaties, conventions and instruments. 93