🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is preparing to claim before the Britain's highest judicial body that it possesses 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 been denied its sovereign immunity claim in the high court and appellate court. Bringing the case to the supreme court demonstrates the significance of this issue for the nation's international reputation.

If Bahrain prevail, the ruling could have broader consequences for how authoritarian states utilize surveillance technology to track and potentially harass opposition figures living in the United Kingdom.

Central Issue of Legal Proceedings

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

Claims and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahraini government used Germany-produced FinFisher spyware to compromise their computers 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 grant Bahrain sovereign immunity against their claims.

Article 5 of the act states that a state does not have immunity from claims for physical or psychological harm resulting from an action or inaction that occurred in the United Kingdom.

The ruling will also offer guidance regarding additional surveillance allegations being pursued by law firms on behalf of clients.

Software Capabilities

Legal representatives claimed that "FinSpy software can gather large quantities of data from infected devices, including recording all keyboard inputs, telephone conversations, messages, emails, calendar records, real-time chats, contacts lists, internet activity, photos, data collections, documents and recordings. It allows recording of real-time sound from the equipment's audio input and camera."

Judicial Analysis

The appellate court determined that external control, overseas, of a electronic device situated in the United Kingdom represented an act within the UK's jurisdiction. Although the hacking occurred abroad, the effect was that the territorial sovereignty of the UK had been violated.

A foreign state does not have immunity for personal injury caused by an act in the UK, even if certain activities take place overseas. The judicial body also determined that "psychological harm" as defined in the state immunity act encompassed standalone psychiatric injury.

Bahrain's Stance

The appeal court ruling noted that Bahrain denied the claimants' allegations of compromising the dissidents' computers with spyware, but the initial court justice "found, on the basis of specialist testimony, that the plaintiffs had discharged the responsibility upon them of demonstrating on the preponderance of evidence that their devices were compromised by malicious software by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, welcomed with the supreme court hearing, saying: "I'm satisfied with the outcome so far of the legal proceedings regarding the cyber intrusion of my computer. It delivers a clear message to foreign governments who target their peaceful political opponents with multiple methods including intruding into their personal affairs and devices."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after facing repeated arrests within the nation, stated: "This process has now reached the highest court in the land. I have a duty to expose what I endured when I am convinced Bahrain compromised my computer. The impact has been profound – especially for those who placed their trust in me, and for my loved ones."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be brought to justice for wrecking our lives. They cannot be allowed to use state protection to pursue their cross-border persecution on UK territory."

Both men have had their nationality withdrawn.

Legal Perspective

A senior legal representative commented: "These proceedings present essential issues about accountability for the deployment of invasive monitoring systems against civil society members and human rights defenders. Our represented individuals, and many others we represent, have waited a considerable period for resolution on these issues."