🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is set to claim before the Britain's highest judicial body that it enjoys state immunity from allegations that it deployed surveillance software on the devices of two activists during their residence in the UK capital.

Court Proceedings Background

The Gulf country has been denied its sovereign immunity claim in both high court and appellate court. Bringing the matter to the supreme court demonstrates the significance of this issue for the country's international reputation.

If Bahrain prevail, the ruling could have wider implications for how authoritarian states employ digital spyware to track and possibly target political dissidents living in the UK.

Key Focus of Supreme Court Hearing

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

Claims and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahraini government used Germany-produced FinFisher spyware to infiltrate their electronic devices while they were residing in London, resulting in psychological harm. The appellate court last October upheld a high court ruling that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not provide Bahrain sovereign immunity against their allegations.

Article 5 of the act states that a country does not have immunity from legal actions for physical or psychological harm caused by an action or inaction that took place in the United Kingdom.

The ruling will also offer guidance regarding additional surveillance allegations being pursued by law firms on behalf of clients.

Software Capabilities

Attorneys claimed that "FinSpy software can gather vast amounts of information from compromised equipment, including capturing all keyboard inputs, telephone conversations, text communications, electronic mail, scheduling information, instant messaging, address books, internet activity, photos, databases, files and videos. It enables capture of live audio from the device's microphone and camera."

Legal Interpretation

The appellate court found that external control, overseas, of a electronic device located in the UK represented an act within the UK's jurisdiction. Although the cyber intrusion took place overseas, the effect was that the territorial sovereignty of the United Kingdom had suffered interference.

A foreign state does not have immunity for psychological harm caused by an act in the United Kingdom, 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.

Bahrain's Stance

The appeal court ruling stated that Bahrain denied the accusers' claims of infecting the dissidents' computers with spyware, but the high court judge "determined, on the basis of specialist testimony, that the claimants had discharged the burden upon them of proving on the preponderance of evidence that their computers were compromised by malicious software by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the supreme court hearing, stating: "I am pleased with the outcome so far of the court case regarding the hacking of my computer. It delivers a strong signal to foreign governments who pursue their non-violent critics with multiple methods including intruding into their personal affairs and equipment."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after facing repeated arrests within the nation, stated: "Our journey has now reached the supreme judicial body in the country. I have a duty to expose what I endured when I am convinced Bahrain compromised my device. The impact has been devastating – especially for those who had confidence in me, and for my loved ones."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be held accountable for destroying our lives. They cannot be allowed to hide behind state protection to advance their cross-border persecution on British soil."

The two individuals have had their Bahraini citizenship revoked.

Attorney Commentary

A lead attorney stated: "This case present fundamental questions about accountability for the deployment of intrusive surveillance technology against political activists and members of civil society. Our represented individuals, and numerous additional people we advocate for, have waited a long time for resolution on these issues."