🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is preparing to claim before the Britain's highest judicial body that it enjoys state immunity from allegations that it installed spyware on the devices of two dissidents during their residence in the UK capital.

Court Proceedings Context

The Gulf country has been denied its sovereign immunity claim in both high court and appellate court. Bringing the matter to the supreme court highlights the importance of this issue for the nation's international reputation.

If Bahrain succeed, the decision could have wider implications for how authoritarian governments utilize surveillance technology to monitor and potentially harass opposition figures residing in the United Kingdom.

Key Focus of Supreme Court Hearing

The legal proceedings, scheduled to begin this midweek, will concentrate on whether the two individuals have the legal right to claim compensation despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than determining whether compensation is warranted.

Allegations 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, resulting in emotional distress. The court of appeal last autumn supported a high court ruling that the 1978 immunity legislation does not grant Bahrain sovereign immunity against their allegations.

Article 5 of the act specifies that a country does not have immunity from claims for physical or psychological harm resulting from an action or inaction that occurred in the United Kingdom.

The decision will also offer guidance regarding additional spyware claims being pursued by law firms on behalf of affected individuals.

Technical Details

Attorneys claimed that "FinSpy software can collect large quantities of data from infected devices, including capturing all keyboard inputs, voice calls, text communications, electronic mail, calendar records, instant messaging, address books, browsing history, photos, data collections, files and recordings. It enables capture of real-time sound from the device's microphone and camera."

Legal Interpretation

The court of appeal determined that remote manipulation, from abroad, of a computer located in the UK represented an action within the UK's jurisdiction. Even if the hacking took place overseas, the consequence was that the national jurisdiction of the UK had suffered interference.

A foreign state does not have immunity for psychological harm caused by an action in the United Kingdom, even if certain activities occur abroad. The court also ruled that "personal injury" as defined in the state immunity act included independent psychological damage.

Defense Position

The appellate decision stated that Bahrain rejected the accusers' claims of compromising the activists' devices with spyware, but the initial court justice "found, on the based on specialist testimony, that the plaintiffs had discharged the responsibility upon them of demonstrating on the preponderance of evidence that their devices were compromised by malicious software 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, stating: "I'm satisfied with the outcome so far of the legal proceedings regarding the hacking of my computer. It delivers a clear message to overseas authorities who target their peaceful political opponents with various means including intruding into their personal affairs and equipment."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after facing repeated arrests within the nation, commented: "This process has now arrived at the supreme judicial body in the country. I have a responsibility to expose what I experienced when I believe Bahrain compromised my device. The impact has been devastating – especially for those who placed their trust in me, and for my friends and family."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be brought to justice for destroying our lives. They cannot be permitted to use state protection to pursue their transnational repression on UK territory."

Both men have had their Bahraini citizenship withdrawn.

Legal Perspective

A lead attorney commented: "This case present fundamental questions about accountability for the use 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 resolution on these matters."