🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is preparing to argue before the Britain's highest judicial body that it possesses state immunity from accusations that it installed surveillance software on the devices of two activists during their residence in the UK capital.

Court Proceedings Background

Bahrain has previously lost its sovereign immunity claim in both lower court and court of appeal. Bringing the matter to the supreme court demonstrates the significance of this matter for the nation's international reputation.

Should Bahrain prevail, the decision could have wider implications for how authoritarian states employ digital spyware to track and possibly target political dissidents living in the UK.

Central Issue of Supreme Court Hearing

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

Claims and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahraini government used Germany-produced FinFisher surveillance software to infiltrate their computers while they were living in London, resulting in psychological harm. The court of appeal last October upheld a high court ruling that the 1978 immunity legislation does not provide Bahrain state protection against their allegations.

Article 5 of the legislation specifies that a country does not have protection from claims for personal injury resulting from an act or omission that took place in the UK.

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

Technical Details

Attorneys claimed that "The surveillance program can gather vast amounts of information from compromised equipment, including recording every keystroke, telephone conversations, messages, electronic mail, calendar records, instant messaging, contacts lists, internet activity, photos, databases, documents and recordings. It enables recording of live audio from the device's microphone and visual recording device."

Judicial Analysis

The appellate court determined that external control, overseas, of a electronic device situated in the UK represented an act within the British territory. Although the cyber intrusion took place overseas, the effect was that the national jurisdiction of the UK had suffered interference.

A foreign state does not have immunity for psychological harm resulting from an action in the United Kingdom, even if certain activities take place abroad. The court also ruled that "personal injury" as interpreted in the state immunity act encompassed independent psychological damage.

Bahrain's Stance

The appellate decision noted that Bahrain denied the claimants' allegations of infecting the dissidents' computers with spyware, but the high court judge "found, on the basis of specialist testimony, that the plaintiffs had met the responsibility upon them of proving on the balance of probabilities that their computers were compromised by spyware by Bahraini representatives."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a 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 court case regarding the cyber intrusion of my computer. It sends a strong signal to overseas authorities who pursue their peaceful political opponents with various means including violating their private lives and equipment."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after facing repeated arrests within the nation, stated: "This process has now arrived at the supreme judicial body in the country. I have a responsibility to reveal what I experienced when I believe Bahrain compromised my device. The impact has been profound – particularly for those who had confidence in me, and for my loved ones."

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

The two individuals have had their nationality revoked.

Legal Perspective

A senior legal representative commented: "These proceedings raise essential issues about accountability for the deployment of invasive monitoring systems against civil society members and human rights defenders. Our represented individuals, and many others we represent, have anticipated a considerable period for resolution on these issues."