🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is preparing to argue before the Britain's highest judicial body that it possesses sovereign immunity from accusations that it installed surveillance software on the devices of two activists during their stay in the UK capital.

Court Proceedings Context

Bahrain has previously lost its immunity argument in both high court and appellate court. Taking the case to the supreme court highlights the importance of this issue for the nation's global standing.

Should Bahrain succeed, the decision could have wider consequences for how authoritarian states utilize surveillance technology to track and potentially harass opposition figures residing in the UK.

Central Issue of Legal Proceedings

The supreme court hearing, starting this midweek, will focus on whether the two individuals have the legal right to seek compensation despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than addressing whether damages are applicable.

Allegations and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahrain authorities used Germany-produced FinFisher surveillance software to compromise their electronic devices while they were living in London, resulting in emotional distress. The appellate court last October upheld a previous court decision that the 1978 immunity legislation does not provide Bahrain sovereign immunity against their claims.

Section 5 of the legislation specifies that a country does not have immunity from claims for personal injury caused by an act or omission that occurred in the United Kingdom.

The decision will also provide clarity regarding other surveillance allegations being handled by legal teams on behalf of affected individuals.

Technical Details

Attorneys claimed that "FinSpy software can collect vast amounts of information from compromised equipment, including capturing every keystroke, voice calls, messages, electronic mail, calendar records, real-time chats, address books, internet activity, images, data collections, files and videos. It allows recording of live audio from the device's microphone and visual recording device."

Judicial Analysis

The appellate court determined that remote manipulation, overseas, of a computer located in the UK constituted an action within the British territory. Even if the cyber intrusion occurred abroad, the consequence was that the territorial sovereignty of the UK had suffered interference.

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

Bahrain's Stance

The appeal court ruling noted that Bahrain denied the accusers' claims of infecting the dissidents' computers with spyware, but the high court judge "found, on the basis of specialist testimony, that the claimants had discharged the burden upon them of demonstrating on the preponderance of evidence that their devices were compromised by malicious software by Bahraini representatives."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the legal proceedings, stating: "I'm satisfied with the progress to date of the legal proceedings regarding the cyber intrusion of my electronic device. It delivers a strong signal to overseas authorities who target their non-violent critics with various means including intruding into their personal affairs and equipment."

Mohammed, who fled 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 reveal what I endured when I am convinced Bahrain hacked my device. The impact has been devastating – especially for those who placed their trust in me, and for my loved ones."

"Abusive foreign states 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 British soil."

Both men have had their nationality revoked.

Attorney Commentary

A senior legal representative commented: "These proceedings present essential issues about responsibility for the use of invasive monitoring systems against political activists and human rights defenders. Our clients, and many others we advocate for, have anticipated a long time for clarity on these issues."