🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is preparing to argue before the UK's supreme court that it possesses state immunity from allegations that it installed surveillance software on the computers of two activists during their residence in London.

Court Proceedings Background

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

If Bahrain succeed, the ruling could have wider consequences for how authoritarian governments utilize digital spyware to track and possibly target political dissidents residing in the United Kingdom.

Central Issue of Legal Proceedings

The legal proceedings, scheduled to begin this Wednesday, will focus on whether the two individuals have the legal right to claim compensation despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than addressing whether damages are applicable.

Allegations and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahraini government used Germany-produced FinFisher surveillance software to compromise 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 State Immunity Act 1978 does not grant Bahrain sovereign immunity against their allegations.

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

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

Software Capabilities

Legal representatives claimed that "FinSpy software can collect vast amounts of data from compromised equipment, including recording every keystroke, telephone conversations, text communications, emails, calendar records, instant messaging, contacts lists, internet activity, images, data collections, documents and videos. It enables capture of real-time sound from the equipment's audio input and camera."

Legal Interpretation

The appellate court found that remote manipulation, from abroad, of a electronic device situated in the United Kingdom constituted an action within the UK's jurisdiction. Although the cyber intrusion occurred abroad, the consequence was that the national jurisdiction of the United Kingdom had suffered interference.

A overseas nation does not have immunity for psychological harm resulting from an action in the United Kingdom, even if some acts take place abroad. The court also determined that "psychological harm" as interpreted in the state immunity act encompassed standalone psychiatric injury.

Defense Position

The appellate decision stated that Bahrain rejected the claimants' allegations of compromising the dissidents' computers with surveillance software, but the high court judge "determined, on the basis of specialist testimony, that the plaintiffs had met the burden upon them of proving on the balance of probabilities that their devices were compromised by malicious software by Bahraini representatives."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, welcomed with the legal proceedings, stating: "I am pleased 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 peaceful political opponents with various means including violating their personal affairs and devices."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing repeated arrests within the nation, stated: "Our journey has now arrived at the supreme judicial body in the country. I have a responsibility to reveal what I experienced when I am convinced Bahrain hacked my device. The impact has been profound – particularly for those who had confidence in me, and for my friends and family."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be held accountable for wrecking our lives. They cannot be permitted to use state protection to advance their cross-border persecution on UK territory."

Both men have had their nationality revoked.

Legal Perspective

A lead attorney stated: "These proceedings raise fundamental questions about responsibility for the use of intrusive surveillance technology against civil society members and human rights defenders. Our clients, and numerous additional people we represent, have anticipated a considerable period for clarity on these issues."