🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is set to argue before the Britain's highest judicial body that it possesses state immunity from accusations that it installed spyware on the devices of two dissidents during their residence in London.

Legal Battle Context

Bahrain has previously lost its sovereign immunity claim in both lower court and appellate court. Taking the matter to the supreme court demonstrates the importance of this matter for the nation's international reputation.

If Bahrain prevail, the ruling could have wider implications for how authoritarian states employ surveillance technology to track and possibly target opposition figures residing in the United Kingdom.

Central Issue of Legal Proceedings

The legal proceedings, starting this midweek, will focus on whether the two men have the standing to claim damages despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than addressing whether compensation is warranted.

Claims and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahrain authorities used German-made FinFisher surveillance software to compromise their computers while they were residing in London, resulting in emotional distress. The appellate court last October supported a high court ruling that the 1978 immunity legislation does not grant Bahrain state protection against their allegations.

Article 5 of the legislation states that a country does not have protection from legal actions for physical or psychological harm resulting from an action or inaction that occurred in the UK.

The ruling will also provide clarity regarding other spyware claims being handled by law firms on behalf of affected individuals.

Technical Details

Attorneys stated that "The surveillance program can gather vast amounts of information from infected devices, including capturing all keyboard inputs, telephone conversations, text communications, electronic mail, calendar records, instant messaging, address books, browsing history, images, databases, files and recordings. It allows capture of live audio from the device's microphone and visual recording device."

Legal Interpretation

The appellate court found that remote manipulation, overseas, of a electronic device located in the United Kingdom represented an action within the British territory. Although the hacking took place overseas, the effect was that the territorial sovereignty of the UK had suffered interference.

A overseas nation does not have immunity for psychological harm caused by an act in the UK, even if certain activities occur overseas. The judicial body also ruled that "personal injury" as defined in the state immunity act encompassed independent psychological damage.

Defense Position

The appellate decision stated that Bahrain denied the accusers' claims of infecting the dissidents' computers with surveillance software, but the initial court justice "determined, on the based on expert evidence, that the plaintiffs had met the responsibility upon them of demonstrating on the preponderance of evidence that their computers were infected by malicious software by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, welcomed with the supreme court hearing, stating: "I'm satisfied with the outcome so far of the court case regarding the cyber intrusion of my computer. It sends a strong signal to overseas authorities who pursue their non-violent critics with multiple methods including violating their private lives and devices."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing frequent detention within the country, commented: "Our journey has now reached the highest court in the country. I have a duty to expose what I endured when I believe Bahrain compromised my computer. The impact has been devastating – particularly for those who had confidence in me, and for my loved ones."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be brought to justice for destroying our lives. They cannot be allowed to hide behind diplomatic immunity to advance their cross-border persecution on British soil."

The two individuals have had their nationality revoked.

Legal Perspective

A lead attorney stated: "These proceedings present fundamental questions about responsibility for the deployment of intrusive surveillance technology against civil society members and members of civil society. Our clients, and many others we advocate for, have waited a long time for clarity on these issues."