🔗 Share this article

Bahrain 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 computers of two activists during their residence in the UK capital.

Court Proceedings Context

The Gulf country has been denied its immunity argument in the lower court and appellate court. Taking the case to the highest court demonstrates the significance of this issue for the country's global standing.

Should Bahrain prevail, the decision could have broader consequences for how authoritarian governments utilize digital spyware to track and possibly target opposition figures residing in the United Kingdom.

Key Focus of Legal Proceedings

The legal proceedings, starting this Wednesday, will concentrate on whether the two men have the standing to claim damages despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than determining whether compensation is warranted.

Claims and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahraini government used Germany-produced FinFisher spyware to compromise their electronic devices while they were living in London, causing psychological harm. The court of appeal last October upheld a previous court decision that the 1978 immunity legislation does not grant Bahrain sovereign immunity against their allegations.

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

The ruling will also provide clarity regarding other spyware claims being pursued by law firms on behalf of affected individuals.

Technical Details

Attorneys stated that "FinSpy software can gather large quantities of information from infected devices, including recording every keystroke, telephone conversations, messages, electronic mail, scheduling information, instant messaging, contacts lists, internet activity, images, databases, documents and recordings. It allows capture of live audio from the device's microphone and visual recording device."

Legal Interpretation

The court of appeal determined that remote manipulation, overseas, of a computer located in the UK constituted an act within the British territory. Even if the cyber intrusion occurred abroad, the effect was that the national jurisdiction of the UK had been violated.

A foreign state does not have protection for psychological harm resulting from an act in the UK, although certain acts occur abroad. The judicial body also determined that "psychological harm" as interpreted in the immunity legislation encompassed independent psychological damage.

Defense Position

The appeal court ruling noted that Bahrain denied the accusers' claims of compromising the dissidents' computers with spyware, but the high court judge "found, on the based on specialist testimony, that the plaintiffs had discharged the burden upon them of proving on the balance of probabilities that their devices were compromised by malicious software by Bahraini representatives."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a co-founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, welcomed with the supreme court hearing, saying: "I'm satisfied with the progress to date of the court case regarding the hacking of my electronic device. It delivers a clear message to foreign governments who target their non-violent critics with multiple methods including intruding into their personal affairs and equipment."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing repeated arrests within the country, stated: "This process has now reached the highest court in the land. I have a responsibility to reveal what I experienced when I am convinced Bahrain compromised my computer. The impact has been profound – especially for those who had confidence in me, and for my friends and family."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be held accountable for destroying our lives. They cannot be permitted to use diplomatic immunity to pursue their cross-border persecution on British soil."

Both men have had their Bahraini citizenship revoked.

Legal Perspective

A senior legal representative stated: "This case raise essential issues about responsibility for the deployment of intrusive surveillance technology against political activists and members of civil society. Our clients, and many others we represent, have anticipated a long time for resolution on these issues."