🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is preparing to argue before the Britain's highest judicial body that it possesses sovereign immunity from accusations that it installed surveillance software on the computers of two activists during their stay in London.

Legal Battle Context

The Gulf country has previously lost its immunity argument in the high court and court of appeal. Taking the case to the supreme court highlights the significance of this issue for the nation's international reputation.

If Bahrain succeed, the decision could have wider consequences for how authoritarian governments utilize digital spyware to track and possibly target political dissidents residing in the United Kingdom.

Key Focus of Legal Proceedings

The legal proceedings, starting this midweek, will focus on whether the two men have the legal right to seek compensation despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than determining whether compensation is warranted.

Claims and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahrain authorities used Germany-produced FinFisher surveillance software to compromise their computers while they were living in London, resulting in emotional distress. The appellate court last October upheld a high court ruling that the 1978 immunity legislation does not grant Bahrain state protection against their claims.

Article 5 of the legislation states that a state does not have immunity from claims for personal injury resulting from an action or inaction that occurred in the UK.

The decision will also provide clarity regarding other spyware claims being pursued by legal teams on behalf of affected individuals.

Software Capabilities

Legal representatives claimed that "FinSpy software can collect large quantities of information from compromised equipment, including capturing every keystroke, voice calls, text communications, emails, scheduling information, real-time chats, address books, internet activity, photos, databases, files and recordings. It enables capture of real-time sound from the equipment's audio input and camera."

Judicial Analysis

The court of appeal determined that remote manipulation, from abroad, of a electronic device located in the UK represented an act within the UK's jurisdiction. Although the cyber intrusion occurred abroad, the effect was that the national jurisdiction of the UK had suffered interference.

A overseas nation does not have protection for personal injury resulting from an action in the UK, even if some activities occur abroad. The judicial body also determined that "psychological harm" as defined in the state immunity act included independent psychological damage.

Defense Position

The appellate decision noted that Bahrain denied the claimants' allegations of compromising the activists' devices with surveillance software, but the initial court justice "determined, on the basis of specialist testimony, that the plaintiffs had discharged the responsibility upon them of proving on the preponderance of evidence that their computers were infected by spyware by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a co-founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the supreme court hearing, saying: "I'm satisfied with the outcome so far of the legal proceedings regarding the hacking of my electronic device. It delivers a strong signal to foreign governments who pursue their non-violent critics with multiple methods including violating their private lives and equipment."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing frequent detention within the nation, stated: "This process has now reached the highest court in the country. I have a responsibility to expose what I endured when I believe Bahrain hacked my computer. The impact has been profound – especially for those who placed their trust in me, and for my loved ones."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be brought to justice for wrecking our lives. They cannot be permitted to hide behind diplomatic immunity to pursue their transnational repression on British soil."

The two individuals have had their Bahraini citizenship revoked.

Attorney Commentary

A senior legal representative stated: "These proceedings raise fundamental questions about responsibility for the deployment of intrusive surveillance technology against civil society members and human rights defenders. Our represented individuals, and numerous additional people we advocate for, have anticipated a long time for clarity on these matters."