🔗 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 dissidents during their stay in London.

Legal Battle Background

The Gulf country has been denied its immunity argument in the lower court and court of appeal. Taking the matter to the supreme court demonstrates the significance of this matter for the country's global standing.

If Bahrain succeed, the decision could have broader consequences for how authoritarian states employ digital spyware to track and possibly target opposition figures residing in the United Kingdom.

Central Issue of Legal Proceedings

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

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 emotional distress. The appellate court last October upheld a high court ruling that the 1978 immunity legislation does not grant Bahrain sovereign immunity against their claims.

Article 5 of the act specifies that a country does not have immunity from claims for physical or psychological harm resulting from an act or omission that took place in the UK.

The ruling will also offer guidance regarding additional spyware claims being handled by legal teams on behalf of clients.

Technical Details

Attorneys claimed that "FinSpy software can gather vast amounts of information from infected devices, including recording all keyboard inputs, telephone conversations, text communications, electronic mail, scheduling information, real-time chats, contacts lists, browsing history, photos, databases, documents and videos. It allows capture of real-time sound from the device's microphone and visual recording device."

Judicial Analysis

The appellate court found that remote manipulation, overseas, of a electronic device situated in the United Kingdom constituted an act within the UK's jurisdiction. Although the cyber intrusion took place overseas, the effect was that the national jurisdiction of the UK had been violated.

A overseas nation does not have immunity for personal injury resulting from an act in the UK, although some acts take place abroad. The judicial body also ruled that "personal injury" as interpreted in the immunity legislation encompassed independent psychological damage.

Bahrain's Stance

The appellate decision noted that Bahrain denied the accusers' claims of compromising the dissidents' computers with spyware, but the initial court justice "found, on the based on expert evidence, that the claimants had met the responsibility upon them of demonstrating on the balance of probabilities that their computers were infected by spyware by Bahraini representatives."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the legal proceedings, stating: "I'm satisfied with the progress to date of the court case regarding the cyber intrusion of my electronic device. It sends a strong signal to foreign governments who pursue their peaceful political opponents with multiple methods including intruding into their personal affairs and equipment."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after facing frequent detention within the country, commented: "This process has now reached the supreme judicial body in the country. I have a duty to reveal what I endured when I believe Bahrain hacked my device. The impact has been devastating – especially for those who placed their trust in me, and for my loved ones."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be brought to justice for destroying our lives. They cannot be allowed to use diplomatic immunity to advance their transnational repression on British soil."

Both men have had their Bahraini citizenship revoked.

Attorney Commentary

A lead attorney commented: "These proceedings raise essential issues about responsibility for the deployment of intrusive surveillance technology against political activists and members of civil society. Our represented individuals, and many others we represent, have waited a considerable period for resolution on these issues."