🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is set to claim before the Britain's highest judicial body that it possesses sovereign immunity from allegations that it installed spyware on the computers of two dissidents during their stay in London.

Court Proceedings Context

Bahrain has previously lost its sovereign immunity claim in both lower court and appellate court. Taking the matter to the highest court highlights the significance of this issue for the country's international reputation.

Should Bahrain prevail, the decision could have wider implications for how authoritarian governments utilize digital spyware to track and possibly target political dissidents living in the United Kingdom.

Key Focus of Supreme Court Hearing

The legal proceedings, scheduled to begin this midweek, will focus on whether the two men have the standing to claim damages despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than addressing whether compensation is warranted.

Claims and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahrain authorities used Germany-produced FinFisher surveillance software to infiltrate their electronic devices while they were residing in London, causing psychological harm. The appellate court last October upheld a previous court decision that the 1978 immunity legislation does not grant Bahrain state protection against their claims.

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

The ruling will also provide clarity regarding additional surveillance allegations being handled by legal teams on behalf of affected individuals.

Technical Details

Attorneys stated that "FinSpy software can gather large quantities of data from infected devices, including recording all keyboard inputs, telephone conversations, messages, electronic mail, calendar records, real-time chats, address books, browsing history, photos, data collections, files and videos. It enables capture of live audio from the device's microphone and camera."

Judicial Analysis

The appellate court found that remote manipulation, overseas, of a electronic device situated in the United Kingdom constituted an action within the UK's jurisdiction. Even if the hacking occurred abroad, the consequence was that the territorial sovereignty of the United Kingdom had suffered interference.

A foreign state does not have protection for psychological harm resulting from an act in the UK, although some acts occur abroad. The court also determined that "psychological harm" as interpreted in the immunity legislation encompassed standalone psychiatric injury.

Bahrain's Stance

The appellate decision stated that Bahrain rejected the claimants' allegations of infecting the activists' devices with surveillance software, but the initial court justice "determined, on the basis of specialist testimony, that the claimants had met the burden upon them of demonstrating on the preponderance of evidence that their computers were compromised by malicious software by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a co-founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the legal proceedings, stating: "I am pleased with the outcome so far of the legal proceedings regarding the cyber intrusion of my computer. It delivers a strong signal to foreign governments who target their non-violent critics with various means including intruding into their private lives and equipment."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after facing frequent detention within the country, stated: "This process has now reached the highest court in the country. I have a responsibility to reveal what I experienced when I believe Bahrain hacked my device. The impact has been devastating – particularly for those who had confidence in me, and for my loved ones."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be brought to justice for wrecking our lives. They cannot be allowed to use diplomatic immunity to advance their transnational repression on UK territory."

Both men have had their nationality withdrawn.

Legal Perspective

A senior legal representative stated: "This case present fundamental questions about responsibility for the deployment of invasive monitoring systems against political activists and human rights defenders. Our represented individuals, and many others we represent, have waited a considerable period for clarity on these matters."