🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is preparing to argue before the Britain's highest judicial body that it enjoys state immunity from accusations that it installed surveillance software on the computers of two dissidents during their residence in the UK capital.

Legal Battle Context

The Gulf country has previously lost its sovereign immunity claim in the high court and court of appeal. Taking the case to the supreme court highlights the significance of this matter for the country's international reputation.

Should Bahrain succeed, the decision could have broader implications for how authoritarian states employ surveillance technology to monitor and possibly target opposition figures residing in the United Kingdom.

Key Focus of Supreme Court Hearing

The legal proceedings, starting this Wednesday, will concentrate on whether the two individuals have the standing to claim damages despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than addressing whether damages are applicable.

Claims and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahrain authorities used German-made FinFisher surveillance software to infiltrate their computers while they were residing in London, resulting in emotional distress. The court of appeal last October supported a previous court decision that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not provide Bahrain state protection against their allegations.

Article 5 of the legislation states that a country does not have immunity from claims for physical or psychological harm caused by an action or inaction that took place in the UK.

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

Software Capabilities

Attorneys stated that "FinSpy software can gather large quantities of data from compromised equipment, including recording all keyboard inputs, telephone conversations, messages, electronic mail, calendar records, instant messaging, contacts lists, internet activity, photos, data collections, documents and recordings. It enables capture of real-time sound from the equipment's audio input and camera."

Judicial Analysis

The appellate court found that external control, overseas, of a electronic device located in the United Kingdom constituted an action within the British territory. Even if the cyber intrusion took place overseas, the consequence was that the territorial sovereignty of the United Kingdom had suffered interference.

A overseas nation does not have protection for personal injury caused by an act in the UK, although some activities take place abroad. The judicial body also ruled that "psychological harm" as interpreted in the state immunity act encompassed standalone psychiatric injury.

Bahrain's Stance

The appeal court ruling stated that Bahrain denied the claimants' allegations of infecting the dissidents' computers with surveillance software, but the initial court justice "found, on the based on specialist testimony, that the plaintiffs had met the burden upon them of demonstrating on the preponderance of evidence that their devices were infected by malicious software by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the supreme court hearing, stating: "I am pleased with the outcome so far of the court case regarding the cyber intrusion of my electronic device. It delivers a strong signal to foreign governments who target their peaceful political opponents with multiple methods including intruding into their personal affairs and equipment."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing frequent detention within the nation, commented: "This process has now reached the supreme judicial body in the land. I have a duty to expose what I experienced when I believe Bahrain hacked my device. The impact has been profound – especially for those who placed their trust 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 hide behind diplomatic immunity to advance their transnational repression on UK territory."

Both men have had their nationality revoked.

Attorney Commentary

A senior legal representative commented: "These proceedings present essential issues about accountability for the deployment of invasive monitoring systems against civil society members and members of civil society. Our clients, and many others we advocate for, have waited a considerable period for clarity on these issues."