🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is preparing to claim before the Britain's highest judicial body that it enjoys sovereign immunity from accusations that it installed spyware on the devices of two dissidents during their stay in London.

Court Proceedings Context

The Gulf country has previously lost its immunity argument in both high court and court of appeal. Taking the matter to the highest court highlights the significance of this issue for the country's global standing.

If Bahrain prevail, the decision could have wider implications for how authoritarian states employ surveillance technology to track and potentially harass political dissidents living in the United Kingdom.

Key Focus of Legal Proceedings

The supreme court hearing, scheduled to begin this Wednesday, will focus on whether the two men have the standing to seek damages despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than determining whether compensation is warranted.

Claims and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahraini government used German-made FinFisher surveillance software to infiltrate their electronic devices while they were living in London, causing psychological harm. The appellate court last October upheld a previous court decision that the 1978 immunity legislation does not provide Bahrain sovereign immunity against their claims.

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

The ruling will also provide clarity regarding other surveillance allegations being pursued by law firms on behalf of clients.

Software Capabilities

Attorneys stated that "FinSpy software can gather vast amounts of information from compromised equipment, including recording all keyboard inputs, telephone conversations, text communications, electronic mail, scheduling information, real-time chats, contacts lists, browsing history, photos, data collections, files and recordings. It enables capture of live audio from the device's microphone and visual recording device."

Judicial Analysis

The court of appeal determined that remote manipulation, from abroad, of a electronic device situated in the United Kingdom represented an action within the UK's jurisdiction. Although the cyber intrusion took place overseas, the effect was that the territorial sovereignty of the UK had been violated.

A overseas nation does not have immunity for personal injury resulting from an act in the United Kingdom, even if some activities occur overseas. The court also determined that "psychological harm" as interpreted in the immunity legislation encompassed standalone psychiatric injury.

Defense Position

The appellate decision noted that Bahrain rejected the claimants' allegations of compromising the activists' devices with surveillance software, but the initial court justice "found, on the based on expert evidence, that the plaintiffs had discharged the responsibility upon them of proving on the balance of probabilities that their devices were infected by spyware by Bahraini representatives."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the legal proceedings, saying: "I'm satisfied with the outcome so far of the court case regarding the hacking of my computer. It delivers a clear message to overseas authorities who target their non-violent critics with multiple methods including violating their personal affairs and equipment."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing repeated arrests within the nation, stated: "This process has now reached the supreme judicial body in the country. I have a duty to expose what I endured when I believe Bahrain compromised my device. The impact has been devastating – particularly for those who placed their trust in me, and for my loved ones."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be held accountable for wrecking our lives. They cannot be allowed to hide behind diplomatic immunity to advance their cross-border persecution on British soil."

The two individuals 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 clients, and many others we represent, have anticipated a considerable period for clarity on these matters."