🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is preparing to argue before the Britain's highest judicial body that it enjoys sovereign immunity from allegations that it deployed spyware on the devices of two dissidents during their residence in the UK capital.

Court Proceedings Background

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

If Bahrain prevail, the decision could have broader consequences for how authoritarian states employ surveillance technology to track and possibly target opposition figures living in the United Kingdom.

Central Issue of Legal Proceedings

The legal proceedings, starting this midweek, 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.

Allegations and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahraini government used Germany-produced FinFisher surveillance software to compromise their computers while they were residing in London, causing emotional distress. The appellate court last autumn upheld a previous court decision that the 1978 immunity legislation does not grant Bahrain state protection against their claims.

Article 5 of the act states that a country does not have immunity from legal actions for physical or psychological harm caused by an act or omission that occurred in the UK.

The ruling will also offer guidance regarding other surveillance allegations being handled by law firms on behalf of affected individuals.

Technical Details

Legal representatives stated that "FinSpy software can gather vast amounts of information from infected devices, including capturing every keystroke, telephone conversations, text communications, emails, scheduling information, real-time chats, address books, browsing history, photos, databases, files and videos. It enables recording of live audio from the equipment's audio input and camera."

Legal Interpretation

The appellate court determined that remote manipulation, overseas, of a computer situated in the United Kingdom constituted an act within the British territory. Although the cyber intrusion took place overseas, the consequence was that the territorial sovereignty of the United Kingdom had been violated.

A foreign state does not have protection for personal injury resulting from an action in the United Kingdom, although certain acts take place overseas. The judicial body also ruled that "personal injury" as defined in the immunity legislation included independent psychological damage.

Defense Position

The appellate decision stated that Bahrain denied the accusers' claims of compromising the dissidents' computers with surveillance software, but the initial court justice "found, on the basis of expert evidence, that the plaintiffs had discharged the responsibility upon them of proving on the preponderance of evidence that their computers 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 am pleased with the progress to date of the court case regarding the hacking of my electronic device. It delivers a strong signal to foreign governments who pursue their peaceful political opponents with various means including intruding into their private lives and equipment."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after facing frequent detention within the nation, commented: "This process has now reached the highest court in the country. I have a responsibility to expose what I experienced when I am convinced Bahrain compromised my computer. The effect 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 wrecking our lives. They cannot be allowed to hide behind state protection to advance their transnational repression on UK territory."

The two individuals have had their Bahraini citizenship revoked.

Legal Perspective

A lead attorney stated: "This case raise fundamental questions about responsibility for the deployment of intrusive surveillance technology against civil society members and human rights defenders. Our represented individuals, and many others we advocate for, have anticipated a considerable period for clarity on these matters."