🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is preparing to argue before the UK's supreme court that it possesses state immunity from allegations that it installed spyware on the computers of two activists during their residence in London.

Court Proceedings Background

The Gulf country has been denied its sovereign immunity claim in both high court and court of appeal. Bringing the case to the highest court demonstrates the importance of this matter for the nation's international reputation.

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

Central Issue of Legal Proceedings

The legal proceedings, scheduled to begin this Wednesday, will concentrate on whether the two individuals have the standing to claim compensation despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than determining whether compensation is warranted.

Claims and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahrain authorities used German-made FinFisher surveillance software to compromise their computers while they were living 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 states that a country does not have protection from claims for personal injury caused by an action or inaction that took place in the United Kingdom.

The ruling will also provide clarity regarding additional surveillance allegations being pursued by legal teams on behalf of clients.

Software Capabilities

Legal representatives stated that "FinSpy software can gather vast amounts of information from infected devices, including capturing all keyboard inputs, voice calls, text communications, electronic mail, scheduling information, real-time chats, contacts lists, browsing history, images, data collections, files and videos. It allows recording of real-time sound from the equipment's audio input and visual recording device."

Legal Interpretation

The court of appeal determined that external control, overseas, of a electronic device located in the United Kingdom constituted an action within the British territory. Although the hacking occurred abroad, the effect was that the national jurisdiction of the United Kingdom had been violated.

A foreign state does not have protection for psychological harm caused by an act in the UK, even if some activities take place abroad. The judicial body also determined that "personal injury" as interpreted in the immunity legislation encompassed independent psychological damage.

Bahrain's Stance

The appellate decision noted that Bahrain rejected the claimants' allegations of infecting the activists' devices with spyware, but the high court judge "found, on the basis of specialist testimony, that the plaintiffs had met the burden upon them of demonstrating on the preponderance of evidence that their devices were infected by spyware by Bahraini representatives."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a co-founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the supreme court hearing, saying: "I am pleased with the progress to date of the court case regarding the cyber intrusion of my computer. It delivers a strong signal to foreign governments who target their non-violent critics with multiple methods including violating their private lives and devices."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after facing repeated arrests within the nation, stated: "This process has now reached the supreme judicial body in the country. I have a duty to reveal what I experienced when I believe Bahrain compromised 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 brought to justice for destroying our lives. They cannot be allowed to use diplomatic immunity to pursue their cross-border persecution on UK territory."

The two individuals have had their nationality revoked.

Legal Perspective

A lead attorney stated: "These proceedings raise essential issues about responsibility for the deployment of intrusive surveillance technology against political activists and human rights defenders. Our clients, and many others we represent, have anticipated a long time for clarity on these matters."