E/CN.4/2003/85/Add.4 page 10 bail bonds to secure the temporary release of workers under detention; court fees; charges and other reasonable litigation expenses; travelling, per diem, hotel and communication expenses in connection with legal assistance cases. A maximum amount is specified under each category. Disbursements from the Fund are limited to: criminal cases and other labour disputes; appeal of cases where the sentence is life imprisonment or the death penalty; payment of legal counsel only when public defence is not available and the defendant cannot afford the services of a private counsel; the reaching of amicable settlement of a case where the accused does not appear to be guilty of the offence, as determined by the head of post. B. The Government’s protection policy 24. RA 8042 states that, “the State shall, at all times, uphold the dignity of its citizens, whether in country or overseas, in general and Filipino migrant workers in particular”. The Act further states that, while recognizing the significant contribution of Filipino migrant workers to the national economy through their foreign exchange remittances, “the State does not promote overseas employment as a means to sustain economic growth and achieve national development”; instead, “the existence of the overseas employment programme rests solely on the assurance that the dignity and fundamental human rights and freedoms of the Filipino citizen shall not, at any time, be compromised or violated. The State shall therefore continuously create local employment opportunities and promote equitable distribution of wealth …”. On the other hand, the Act states that “the deployment of OFWs … shall be encouraged” and that “appropriate incentive may be extended to them”. Critics argue that these provisions are contradictory. The Special Rapporteur believes that such contradiction is a reflection of a situation in which a high rate of unemployment, coupled with the existence of a culture of migration and a high demand for OFWs, strongly favour migration, sometimes in conditions that compromise the effectiveness of protection mechanisms envisaged in the Act. 25. The Act provides that “the State shall deploy OFWs in countries where the rights of Filipino migrant workers are protected”. However, the Special Rapporteur was informed that in some countries of destination, especially in the Middle East, domestic workers are excluded from existing social and labour laws. Migrant workers are excluded from Kuwait’s Private Sector Labour Law, Saudi Arabia’s Labour Law and Singapore’s Employment Act.3 In several countries, OFWs are obliged to undergo a mandatory HIV test, while in Singapore the law prescribes that migrant women must undergo a medical examination and a pregnancy test and cannot marry Singaporean men. Yet, deployment of OFWs to these countries continues. 26. The Special Rapporteur learned with satisfaction that the Philippines has concluded bilateral agreements with a number of countries of destination. However, States with the highest incidence of abuse and violence are the most reluctant to enter into bilateral agreements. In some cases, even where bilateral agreements exist, the Special Rapporteur was informed that they are not respected or enforced.4 Other measures were undertaken by the Government to protect OFWs. Following reports of abuses, in 1988 the Government imposed a ban on all domestic workers, which could be lifted on a case-by-case basis after negotiations with the receiving country on improved labour conditions. The ban provoked a negative reaction from Filipino women, while receiving countries ignored it in practice and it was finally lifted in 1991 in over 50 countries.