🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is preparing to claim before the Britain's highest judicial body that it enjoys sovereign immunity from accusations that it installed surveillance software on the devices of two dissidents during their residence in the UK capital.

Court Proceedings Background

The Gulf country has been denied its immunity argument in both lower court and appellate court. Bringing the matter to the highest court highlights the importance of this matter for the nation's global standing.

If Bahrain succeed, the decision could have wider consequences for how authoritarian governments utilize surveillance technology to monitor and potentially harass political dissidents residing in the UK.

Central Issue of Supreme Court Hearing

The supreme court hearing, starting this Wednesday, will concentrate on whether the two men have the legal right to seek damages despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than addressing whether compensation is warranted.

Allegations and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahraini government used German-made FinFisher surveillance software to compromise their computers while they were residing in London, resulting in psychological harm. The appellate court last autumn supported a previous court decision that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not provide Bahrain sovereign immunity 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 occurred in the UK.

The ruling will also provide clarity regarding other surveillance allegations being pursued by law firms on behalf of affected individuals.

Software Capabilities

Attorneys stated that "FinSpy software can collect large quantities of data from compromised equipment, including recording all keyboard inputs, telephone conversations, text communications, emails, scheduling information, real-time chats, contacts lists, internet activity, images, databases, files and recordings. It enables recording of live audio from the device's microphone and camera."

Legal Interpretation

The court of appeal found that external control, overseas, of a electronic device located in the United Kingdom constituted an act within the British territory. Although the cyber intrusion took place overseas, the effect was that the territorial sovereignty of the UK had been violated.

A overseas nation does not have immunity for psychological harm resulting from an act in the United Kingdom, although certain activities occur abroad. The judicial body also ruled that "personal injury" as interpreted in the immunity legislation included independent psychological damage.

Bahrain's Stance

The appeal court ruling stated that Bahrain denied the accusers' claims of compromising the dissidents' computers with spyware, but the initial court justice "found, on the based on expert evidence, that the plaintiffs had met the responsibility upon them of demonstrating on the balance of probabilities that their devices were compromised by spyware by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the legal proceedings, saying: "I'm satisfied with the progress to date of the legal proceedings regarding the hacking of my computer. It sends a strong signal to overseas authorities who target their peaceful political opponents with multiple methods including violating their personal affairs and equipment."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing frequent detention within the nation, stated: "Our journey has now arrived at the supreme judicial body in the country. I have a duty to expose what I endured when I am convinced Bahrain hacked my computer. The impact has been devastating – 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 hide behind diplomatic immunity to advance their transnational repression on UK territory."

The two individuals have had their nationality revoked.

Attorney Commentary

A lead attorney commented: "This case raise essential issues about responsibility for the use of invasive monitoring systems against civil society members and human rights defenders. Our clients, and numerous additional people we advocate for, have waited a long time for resolution on these issues."