🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is set to claim before the UK's supreme court that it possesses sovereign immunity from allegations that it installed surveillance software on the computers of two dissidents during their stay in London.

Legal Battle Background

Bahrain has been denied its immunity argument in the lower court and court of appeal. Taking the matter to the supreme court highlights the importance of this matter for the nation's global standing.

If Bahrain succeed, the ruling could have broader implications for how authoritarian states utilize digital spyware to monitor and potentially harass political dissidents living in the United Kingdom.

Key Focus of Legal Proceedings

The supreme court hearing, starting this Wednesday, will focus on whether the two individuals have the standing to claim damages despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than determining whether damages are applicable.

Allegations and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahrain authorities used Germany-produced FinFisher spyware to infiltrate their electronic devices while they were living in London, causing psychological harm. The appellate court last October supported a previous court decision that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not provide Bahrain state protection against their claims.

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

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

Technical Details

Legal representatives claimed that "FinSpy software can collect vast amounts of data from compromised equipment, including capturing every keystroke, voice calls, text communications, electronic mail, calendar records, instant messaging, contacts lists, internet activity, photos, databases, files and videos. It allows capture of live audio from the device's microphone and camera."

Legal Interpretation

The appellate court determined that external control, overseas, of a computer located in the United Kingdom constituted an action within the UK's jurisdiction. Even if the hacking took place overseas, the effect was that the national jurisdiction of the UK had suffered interference.

A foreign state does not have protection for psychological harm caused by an action in the United Kingdom, even if some acts take place overseas. The court also ruled that "personal injury" as interpreted in the state immunity act encompassed independent psychological damage.

Defense Position

The appellate decision noted that Bahrain rejected the claimants' allegations of compromising the dissidents' computers with spyware, but the initial court justice "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 computers were compromised by spyware by Bahraini representatives."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a co-founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, welcomed with the legal proceedings, saying: "I'm satisfied with the outcome so far of the legal proceedings regarding the hacking of my electronic device. It delivers a clear message to foreign governments who pursue their non-violent critics with various means including violating their private lives and devices."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing repeated arrests within the nation, commented: "This process has now reached the supreme judicial body in the land. I have a duty to reveal what I endured when I am convinced Bahrain hacked my device. The effect has been devastating – especially for those who placed their trust in me, and for my loved ones."

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

Both men have had their Bahraini citizenship withdrawn.

Legal Perspective

A lead attorney stated: "These proceedings present essential issues about accountability for the deployment of invasive monitoring systems against political activists and members of civil society. Our represented individuals, and many others we advocate for, have waited a considerable period for clarity on these matters."