🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is preparing to claim 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 residence in London.

Court Proceedings Context

Bahrain has previously lost its immunity argument in both lower court and appellate court. Bringing the case to the supreme court highlights the significance of this matter for the country's global standing.

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

Key Focus of Legal Proceedings

The legal proceedings, scheduled to begin this Wednesday, will concentrate on whether the two men have the legal right to claim compensation despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than determining 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 court of appeal last October upheld a high court ruling that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not provide Bahrain state protection against their claims.

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

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

Technical Details

Attorneys stated that "FinSpy software can collect vast amounts of information from compromised equipment, including capturing all keyboard inputs, telephone conversations, messages, electronic mail, scheduling information, instant messaging, address books, browsing history, photos, databases, files and recordings. It enables recording of real-time sound from the equipment's audio input and camera."

Legal Interpretation

The court of appeal found that remote manipulation, from abroad, of a electronic device situated in the UK constituted an act within the UK's jurisdiction. Even if the cyber intrusion occurred abroad, the effect was that the territorial sovereignty of the United Kingdom had suffered interference.

A foreign state does not have protection for personal injury caused by an act in the UK, although certain activities occur overseas. The court also ruled that "psychological harm" as defined in the state immunity act encompassed standalone psychiatric injury.

Bahrain's Stance

The appellate decision stated that Bahrain rejected the accusers' claims of compromising the dissidents' computers with surveillance software, but the high court judge "determined, on the basis of specialist testimony, that the claimants had met the burden upon them of demonstrating on the balance of probabilities that their devices were infected by malicious software by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the legal proceedings, saying: "I'm satisfied with the outcome so far of the legal proceedings regarding the cyber intrusion of my computer. It delivers a strong signal to overseas authorities who target their peaceful political opponents with multiple methods including intruding into their private lives and equipment."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after facing repeated arrests within the country, stated: "Our journey has now arrived at the supreme judicial body in the land. I have a duty to reveal what I experienced when I am convinced Bahrain compromised my computer. The impact has been profound – particularly for those who had confidence in me, and for my friends and family."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be brought to justice for destroying our lives. They cannot be allowed to use diplomatic immunity to advance their transnational repression on UK territory."

Both men have had their nationality revoked.

Attorney Commentary

A senior legal representative commented: "This case raise fundamental questions about responsibility for the deployment of intrusive surveillance technology against civil society members and members of civil society. Our represented individuals, and numerous additional people we advocate for, have anticipated a long time for resolution on these issues."