🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is set to argue before the Britain's highest judicial body that it enjoys state immunity from allegations that it installed spyware on the devices of two activists during their stay in the UK capital.

Court Proceedings Background

The Gulf country has previously lost its sovereign immunity claim in the lower court and court of appeal. Bringing the case to the highest court highlights the significance of this issue for the nation's global standing.

If Bahrain succeed, the ruling could have broader consequences for how authoritarian states utilize surveillance technology to track and possibly target political dissidents residing in the UK.

Key Focus of Legal Proceedings

The supreme court hearing, starting this Wednesday, will focus on whether the two individuals have the legal right to claim compensation despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than determining whether compensation is warranted.

Claims and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahrain authorities used German-made FinFisher surveillance software to compromise their electronic devices while they were residing in London, resulting in psychological harm. The appellate court last autumn upheld a high court ruling that the 1978 immunity legislation does not provide Bahrain state protection against their allegations.

Article 5 of the legislation states that a country does not have immunity from claims for physical or psychological harm resulting from an act or omission that occurred in the UK.

The decision will also offer guidance regarding additional spyware claims being handled by law firms on behalf of affected individuals.

Software Capabilities

Attorneys claimed that "FinSpy software can gather vast amounts of information from infected devices, including recording every keystroke, telephone conversations, messages, electronic mail, calendar records, instant messaging, contacts lists, browsing history, photos, databases, documents and recordings. It enables capture of live audio from the device's microphone and camera."

Legal Interpretation

The court of appeal found that remote manipulation, from abroad, of a computer situated in the UK constituted an act within the British territory. Although the hacking took place overseas, the consequence was that the national jurisdiction of the United Kingdom had been violated.

A foreign state does not have protection for personal injury resulting from an act in the UK, even if some acts take place abroad. The judicial body also determined that "psychological harm" as defined in the state immunity act encompassed standalone psychiatric injury.

Defense Position

The appellate decision stated that Bahrain rejected the accusers' claims of compromising the activists' devices with surveillance software, but the initial court justice "found, on the basis of specialist testimony, that the claimants had met the responsibility 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, stating: "I am pleased with the progress to date of the court case regarding the cyber intrusion of my electronic device. It sends a strong signal to overseas authorities who pursue their non-violent critics with various means including intruding into their private lives and devices."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after facing frequent detention within the country, commented: "This process has now reached the highest court in the land. I have a responsibility to reveal what I experienced when I believe Bahrain compromised my device. The impact has been profound – particularly for those who had confidence in me, and for my friends and family."

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

The two individuals have had their nationality withdrawn.

Legal Perspective

A senior legal representative commented: "These proceedings present essential issues about accountability for the deployment of invasive monitoring systems against civil society members and human rights defenders. Our clients, and numerous additional people we advocate for, have anticipated a considerable period for clarity on these matters."