🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is set to argue before the Britain's highest judicial body that it possesses sovereign immunity from accusations that it deployed surveillance software on the computers of two activists during their stay in the UK capital.

Court Proceedings Context

The Gulf country has been denied its sovereign immunity claim in the high court and court of appeal. Bringing the matter to the highest court highlights the significance of this issue for the nation's global standing.

If Bahrain prevail, the decision could have broader consequences for how authoritarian states employ digital spyware to monitor and possibly target political dissidents living in the UK.

Central Issue of Legal Proceedings

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

Allegations and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahraini government used German-made FinFisher surveillance software to compromise their computers while they were residing in London, causing psychological harm. The appellate court last October supported a previous court decision that the 1978 immunity legislation does not provide Bahrain state protection against their allegations.

Section 5 of the legislation specifies that a state does not have immunity from legal actions for personal injury caused by an act or omission that took place in the United Kingdom.

The decision will also provide clarity regarding additional surveillance allegations being handled by law firms on behalf of clients.

Software Capabilities

Attorneys claimed that "The surveillance program can collect large quantities of information from compromised equipment, including capturing every keystroke, voice calls, text communications, electronic mail, calendar records, instant messaging, contacts lists, internet activity, photos, data collections, documents and videos. It enables capture of real-time sound from the equipment's audio input and camera."

Judicial Analysis

The appellate court found that remote manipulation, from abroad, of a electronic device situated in the UK represented an action within the UK's jurisdiction. Even if the cyber intrusion occurred abroad, the consequence was that the territorial sovereignty of the UK had been violated.

A foreign state does not have immunity for psychological harm caused by an action in the UK, even if some acts occur overseas. The judicial body also determined that "psychological harm" as interpreted in the state immunity act included independent psychological damage.

Defense Position

The appeal court ruling noted that Bahrain rejected the accusers' claims of infecting the activists' devices with spyware, but the initial court justice "determined, on the basis of specialist testimony, that the claimants had discharged the burden upon them of demonstrating on the balance of probabilities 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 overseas authorities who pursue their peaceful political opponents with various means including intruding into their private lives and equipment."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing repeated arrests within the nation, commented: "This process has now reached the highest court in the country. I have a duty to expose what I experienced when I believe Bahrain hacked my computer. The effect has been profound – especially for those who had confidence in me, and for my loved ones."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be brought to justice for wrecking our lives. They cannot be permitted to hide behind diplomatic immunity to pursue their transnational repression on UK territory."

The two individuals have had their nationality revoked.

Attorney Commentary

A senior legal representative commented: "This case present fundamental questions about accountability for the use of invasive monitoring systems against civil society members and human rights defenders. Our clients, and many others we advocate for, have anticipated a long time for resolution on these matters."