The often extralegal existence of domestic workers, the prioritization of Saudi employers, and the correspondingly ad-hoc legal verdicts, are particularly pronounced characteristics of this case. Nafeek has been awaiting an official response to her request for clemency since 2007. In November, Sri Lankan officials traveled to Saudi Arabia to ask Rafeek’s former employers for forgiveness in accordance with Saudi’s pardoning laws. But allegedly false accounts of the delegation’s work made by a Sri Lankan parliament member may have Jeopardized Nafeek’s prospects. Shaik Faisal al Otaibi, leader of the Othibi tribe to which Nafeek’s former employers belong, threatened Nafeek’s case will be impacted by the MP’s suggestion that the Othibi tribe has more than one leader. Furthermore, Otaibi claims the Sri Lankan delegation lied about the current circumstances of Nafeeks case, as neither the tribe nor the Saudi government has indicated Nafeek will be released. The leader, who was appointed by King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz, is demanding an apology.

Saudi Arabia’s legal policy towards migrants is volatile to the detriment of these workers, as well as to the groups and governments working on their behalf. However, if Otaibi’s claims are true, the Sri Lankan government must also accept responsibility; whether the delegation truly deceived the Sri Lankan parliament and public, or whether the delegation clumsily mishandled their assignment, the government did not act with the swift resolution that Nafeek so desperately needs. Faith in the Sri Lankan government’s mission has been meager since its outset.

Rizana’s situation reflects the wider relationship existing between Saudi Arabia and migrant-exporting nations, in which migrant-exporters often approach legal cases and permanent policy change with timidity in fear of disrupting the important economic bond. Otaibi’s suggestion that the “false words” of the MP will ruin both Rizana’s case and the Saudi-Sri Lanka relationship demonstrates the convoluted, exponentially weaker position of migrant workers fated to the Saudi legal system.

Lebanon witnessed two cases of suicide last week alone. The blog Ethiopian Suicides catalogs many Ethiopian deaths in Lebanon as the country possesses a large Ethiopian population, as well as a dismal record of migrant rights. Both cases involved a Lebanese domestic worker hanging herself in an employer’s home – almost certainly the source of their misery.

Another Ethiopian woman hung herself in her sponsor’s home in Saudi Arabia, where paltry workers rights and neglected conditions also have a history of pushing maids to commit suicide. Police are investigating the incident according to routine procedure, though the causes of suicide are generally standard themselves – as are the effectively nonexistent punishment for abusive employers.

In Kuwait, where disregard for the plight of domestic workers appears normalized, a woman unsuccessfully attempted to overdose with items from employer’s house. Police investigations have again commenced to determine the woman’s motivation – as if the reasons for her agony could be separated from the life that sponsors almost entirely dictate and create. Another domestic worker attempted to commit suicide in her sponsor’s home as well, but was ‘thwarted’ by police, who then proceeded to interrogate her.

These suicides and suicide attempts come amidst promises for substantive legal change made by many countries; Kuwait agreed to increase the minimum wage for domestic workers, Saudi has promised more protections for its workers, and Lebanon’s minister announced the Kafala system’s forthcoming abolishment. Whether these agreements affect the lives of domestic workers and mitigate the conditions that preempt suicide – or whether they are lost into abyss of broken treaties and pacts – will, at least tangentially, be measured by this year’s suicide rate.

After months of negotiation, Saudi assented to these demands in an accord signed in Manilla. The agreement stipulated a minimum wage of $400//month, a weekly day off, holiday time totaling thirty days, and a free ticket for migrants to return to their home country. The accord also targets several of the most prevalent abuses, rendering it illegal to withhold maids’ passports, to treat them poorly, or to force them to work in multiple households.

While legal protections for domestic workers is a significant achievement in the Gulf region, the effect of the agreement cannot be determined until Saudi’s commitments are ratified in legislation and mechanisms of enforcement are implemented.

The article is written from the perspective of a Saudi employer who, after years of consciously avoiding the entanglement of profiteering and corruption that characterizes the foreign domestic service market, finally gives in to temptation and initiates his quest for a foreign maid. The introduction gives the impression that the author is primarily concerned with contributing to an enterprise indifferent to the exploitative conditions it begets. But when speaking of corruption and exploitation, the author almost exclusively refers to the victimization of Saudi employers.

He explains his own encounters as well as those of others. For his part, he claims to have been blackmailed by the employment office. He expresses his outrage that such a crime could happen under the watchful eye of the relevant embassies – the embassies that largely fail to regulate these same agencies even with the well-being of their own citizens at risk. He continues with anecdotes from his acquaintances, from news articles (we must assume), and hearsay from the grapevine; this includes nefarious scheming on the part of maids, who cooperate with agencies in pretending to be experienced with housework, and to be “good” for three months – the period an employment agency remains legally responsible for her work. It is presented as wholly conceivable that a maid could “pretend” to be experienced for three entire months without her employer realizing she is unskilled at ironing, washing dishes, etc. He describes a semi-theoretical, generalized trajectory of a maid’s behavior: She is swell and docile for three to four months, fulfilling all of her obligations (even though in truth she does not possesses the applicable skills and is in fact hoodwinking her employer), and then she suddenly undergoes a tremendous change – she’s rude, she can no longer cook, she can no longer launder – she may even abscond.

The author does admit that both the rights of maids and Saudi employers are violated by employment agency tactics. There is certainly truth to this statement, as agencies are notorious for their largely unregulated behavior. Saudi employers do have the right to be upset when they are swindled out of their own money. However, the suggestion of a large-scale conspiracy between migrant workers and these agencies is unbelievable and dangerous; the notion that the average maid would want to abscond from steady employment in a non-abusive household to return home, after the extraordinarily arduous process of immigration, where the prospect of employment is significantly lower – all for for a one time-sum, is difficult to fathom. The author also recounts the story of a friend whose maid absconded, but was later found working in the employment agency’s office. Certainly possible in one instance – but absolutely implausible as the systematic practice the author suggests. Similarly, the author’s other notion that thieving migrants abscond after their three month commitment only to obtain new passports and work permits to continue bamboozling Suadis nationwide is preposterous given that the legitimate documentation process is difficult enough, not to mention the severe penalties illegal migrants, as well as absconding migrants, face.

Perhaps the article is not devious in its intention, but its effect is to support the misperception of foreign domestic workers in the Gulf. Such pieces encourage suspicion towards maids, exacerbating the already tense relationship that exists between so many migrants and their sponsors. Furthermore, it designates migrants as the principal problem while relegating the stories of abuse, slavery, and exploitation to mere stereotypes used to hide the somehow more perturbing manipulation of Gulf employers. It overshadows the darker experiences of domestic workers, who are subject to the invisible sphere of the home and often excluded from labor legislation, with a narrative that centers on economics – rather than human rights.

While migrant workers are not the only victims in the foreign domestic service complex, they are the most seriously affected. This article only adds to the myriad of irresponsible pieces that trivialize migrant abuse in the Gulf.

In the first case, the Indonesian Consulate fell into its old habits - failing to intervene in the woman’s case until she had been sentenced death. In receiving no representation or even translation services throughout her trial, Mesi binti Dama Idon underwent a lonely journey in a foreign legal system that had disappeared so many migrants before her. While Indonesia ultimately secured her freedom, the unnerving, lengthy process could have been avoided if litigation assistance was provided from the trial’s commencement.

Migrant Care executive director Anis Hidayah has criticized Indonesia’s modus operandi in the past, most recently telling The Jakarta Post that:

Almost all the workers who have avoided beheading in Saudi Arabia had undergone a very long and arduous legal battle. Some of them had actually been imprisoned for more than 10 years [before having their sentences commuted].”

But in what may represent an incremental improvement in the full assumption of responsibility to its overseas citizens, the Indonesian task force provided Neneng Sunengsih with a lawyer, who was able to persuade the courts that there was not enough evidence to convict her. Migrants accused of similar crimes in Saudi Arabia are often sentenced to death.

The task force alo announced that seven other Indonesian citizens will soon receive pardons from the King. While Indonesia’s ad-hoc policy is problematic in that it avoids comprehensive legislation changes in Saudi Arabia, these efforts may designate a shift towards more assertive diplomacy.

The Indonesian embassy in Saudi paid the fine for Bayanah binti Bahnawi, who was accused of murdering her employer’s 4 year old son. The employer’s forgiveness, a prerequisite for her release under Saudi law, came with the payment of $14,670. Bayanah was cleared of charges in October, which led Indnoesia to question her continued imprisonment. However, Migrant Care director Anis Hidayah states that Bayanah had not received legal assistance from the government throughout her litigation. Bayanah’s father also reported difficulties in attracting his government’s attention while Bayanah underwent several hearings, though the Task Force’s last-minute efforts did prompt Saudi’s amnesty.

The other two migrants, Jamilah binti Abidin Rofi’i and Neneng Sunengsih binti Mamih, were also proven innocent, but did not have to a pay fine.

Tuti Tursilawati, another Indonesian on death row, still awaits her fate. Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal has promised former President BJ Habibie to devote his full efforts to securing Tuti a pardon.

Efforts to release migrants from the death penalty generally follow the same pattern: the migrant’s government appeals to the victim’s family for forgiveness, which often involves a “blood money” payment. Saudi government policy is to stay executions only if the conditions of forgiveness are met. In keeping with the pattern, former Indonesian president BJ Habibie landed in Riyadh Saturday to negotiate with the victim’s family, as well as the Saudi government, for Tuti’s life. Prior to Habibie’s efforts, the current President sent a letter to the regime in October, pleading for her release.

Tuti’s situation reflects the overall failure of Saudi migrant policies. Since few laws exist to protect migrants – especially domestic workers who exist in the hidden sphere of the household – abusive conditions run virtually unrestrained, with no effective means of redress or punishment. Domestic workers must often cope with exploitation and mistreatment in order to avoid further abuse or the loss of employment opportunities, isolated and subject to psychological agony that compounds over time. Domestic workers are at great risk of protracted abuse, which can easily erupt into life-threatening situations for either migrants or their employers. Had an avenue been available for Tuti to redress abuse, the situation in March 2010 may never have come to fruition.

But Indonesia also carries much of the responsibility. Tuti is one of five Indonesian migrants on death row in Saudi Arabia, and part of the 32 worldwide. Migrant Care, Indonesia’s leading migrant rights NGO, accuses the Indonesian government of doing too little, too late. While Indonesia assigned a Migrant Worker’s Task Force to handle death sentences in Saudi, and claims to have saved and repatriated 44 migrants, Migrant Care asserts that the Task Force represents an ineffective “ad-hoc” fix rather than a long term solution. The Task Force addresses problems as they arise, rather than working to enforce permanent policies that would prevent legal abuses.

Migrant workers do commit crimes, and some are truly guilty. But Saudi’s legal system tends to treat migrants in an entirely unequal framework, often barring them form proper representation and even translating services. Consequently, migrants, guilty or not, are barred from the rights that all accused parties deserve. The absence of migrant rights in the judicial process inflates the number of the guilty, and can result in harsher, iniquitous punishments.

Migrant Care executive directory Anis Hidayah emphasizes the necessity of ratifying the International Convention on the Rights of Migrant Workers, which will require Indonesia to institute legislation that establishes standards of migrant treatment in receiving nations. So far, Indonesia has shied away from permanent, long-term protective laws, instead pursuing indefinite bans that have historically had little lasting effect. Preventing abuse, minimizing the opportunity for exploitation, and ensuring evenhanded legal treatment would create a lawful environment favorable to both nations.

Rizana was originally sentenced in 2007 for the murder of her employer’s baby. Rizana maintained the baby choked to death, but Saudi’s discriminatory legal system likely rendered her defense futile. Critics chastise the Sri Lankan government for failing to provide Rizana with legal aid throughout her prosecution and only intervening after her conviction. Sri Lanka is rushing to stay her imminent execution in a delegation set to meet with officials in Riyadh. Rizana’s parents will reportedly join Sri Lankan representatives to appeal for their daughter’s life. NGOs have also weighed in to pressure the Saudi government; the Asian Human Right’s Comission (AHRC) has illustrated the critical importance of activist organizations in filling the void of bungling governments, spending over $30,000 to defend Rizana when Sri Lanka would not.

Sri Lanka claims that the execution has been suspended, despite any official announcement from the Saudi government. Rizana’s fate may ultimately depend upon Sri Lanka’s adherence to Saudi law rather than any efforts to reprehend their legal practices; in past cases, only the victim’s family could pardon the sentenced party. The Sri Lankan government has offered the Saudi parents financial compensation to ‘encourage’ their forgiveness.

The Saudi government does not release the schedule of its executions, indefinitely sustaining musings over Rizana’s future; whether Rizana becomes another casualty of craven governments, the recipient of subsidized reprieve, or the herald of a new era for migrant rights, are aftereffects secondary to her physical well-being, but nonetheless significant.

Read Time‘s coverage of Rizana’s case here.

Update: The Sri Lankan delegation, which included Rizana’ s parents, arrived in Riyadh Tuesday.

Tuesday’s meeting was the first between Nafeek and her parents following her death sentence on June 16, 2007.

The Sri Lankan government officials described the situation as “a delicate affair.”

“Take me home,” Nafeek cried when she met father Mohammed and mother Rifana at a Dawadmi jail. The trio embraced each other.

Read the full story here.

The purpose of the moratorium and related labor bans is to encourage governments to enforce fair migrant practices. But Indonesia appears to avoid dealing with migrant-related laws specifically, and instead attempts to belatedly correct problems that the absence of enshrined protections create. For example, in September and October the Indonesians government issued travel documents for 4,550 illegal workers who absconded from abusive employers. Migrant organizations recognized that repatriation was essential, but questioned what action was taken against the employers, and what measures will be implemented to prevent future abuse. These concerns can only be resolved by addressing the legal environment and ensuing sanctioned social practices in Saudi.

However, aside from Saudi Arabia, Indonesia’s migration policies may constitute a stronger stance against abusive nations than the Philippine’s proposal; Indonesia currently enforces labor bans on four nations (excluding Saudi Arabia). The government recently announced that Malaysia will be removed from the ban in december. But, the countries currently blacklisted appear more significant than those banned by the Philippines because they employ a larger number of citizens. The weighty contribution of Indonesians to the labor force and overall economy means the bans have a more tangible impact on these host countries, and may compel them to alter their policies. Nevertheless, the laxity with Saudi Arabia may impact the willingness of other nations to modify their laws – if the moratorium on Saudi Arabia is in fact lifted, other nations may wager on Indonesia giving into economic pressures before changing their own practices.

Critics emphasize that Indonesia needs to adopt tougher measures against labor-importing countries to ensure migrant protections are enforced rather than forgotten in “letters of intent,” – such as the pledge signed by Saudi Arabia just prior to the infamous June execution of an Indonesian maid. The Indonesian government recently formed several task forces to deal with issues facing its citizens in various countries, but the forces may have limited impact if they continue only to address the product of abuse while treading lightly around the nations that enable it.