4. A
ccordingly, this right requires to be granted respect by the authority and the individuals. At the
same time, it also requires to be guaranteed the constitutional and legal protection by the authorities
against illegal abuse. However, the right to privacy is not an absolute right. It is restricted by public
interest considerations, when the right and the interest of the country in maintaining its internal
and external security and monitoring everything that might prejudice its system and the security of
its citizens by controlling the criminal occurrence come first, before the individual’s right to enjoy
the confidentiality of privacy and not to breach its inviolability and reveal it without permission.
It follows that public interest sets the limits of this right and defines its scope in accordance with the
principle of legitimacy, by balancing between the individual’s right to privacy and the right of the
State to guarantee security and order.
5. With regard to item number “5- Monitoring the means of communication and correspondence,”
the NIHR believes that, recognizing the right of the public prosecution to take several measures
during the investigation period, including to seize letters, mail, newspapers, publications, parcels,
and telegrams, as well as censor telecommunications conversations and correspondence, or order
the recording of conversations that occurred in a special place where this is useful in revealing the
truth in a felony or misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment. Yet, this can only take place within
the judicial guarantee established by the legislature in accordance with the provisions of article
No. (93) of the Decree-by-Law No. (46) of 2002 promulgating the Code of Criminal procedure;
where the public prosecution obtains a substantiated permission from the Lower Court judge
upon reviewing the bill of indictment for a period not exceeding 30 days which is renewable for
another similar period(s).
6.
The NIHR also considers that the above-mentioned exception stated in the text of article
No. (26) of the Constitution on restricting the freedom and confidentiality of correspondence and
communications, must not be interpreted widely. NIHR stresses that the frame of reference of this
admissible exception, which limits the freedom and confidentiality of communications, should - in
addition to being an exceptional and special case- be issued by law. Moreover, the public authority
should not interfere with the exercise of this right except in accordance with the law and as necessity
dictates in a democratic society “in favor of” national security, safeguarding of order, and crime
prevention, or protection of public health and the accepted standards of behavior, or the protection
of the rights and freedoms of the others.
7. Thus, the limits of any legislation that regulates a certain right must be in accordance with the
frame of the constitutional text. Laws may not empty the essence of constitutional text, or infringe
the basic public and personal rights or freedoms set forth herein, which are also guaranteed by
the international legislation on human rights and the international instruments that the Kingdom
of Bahrain has ratified5, which are considered part of its the observed and enforceable laws;
in accordance with article No. (37) of the Constitution, which stipulates that: “The King shall
conclude treaties by Decree, and shall communicate them to the Consultative Council and the
Chamber of Deputies forthwith accompanied by the appropriate statement. A treaty shall have
the force of law once it has been concluded and ratified and published in the Official Gazette”.
Article (12) of the International Declaration of Human Rights
Article (17) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
5
29