🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is set to argue before the Britain's highest judicial body that it possesses state immunity from allegations that it installed spyware on the devices of two dissidents during their residence in London.

Legal Battle Context

Bahrain has previously lost its sovereign immunity claim in both lower court and court of appeal. Bringing the matter to the supreme court highlights the significance of this matter for the nation's international reputation.

If Bahrain prevail, the ruling could have wider consequences for how authoritarian states employ digital spyware to monitor and potentially harass opposition figures living in the United Kingdom.

Central Issue of Legal Proceedings

The legal proceedings, starting this Wednesday, will concentrate on whether the two individuals have the standing to seek compensation despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than addressing whether damages are applicable.

Claims and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahrain authorities used Germany-produced FinFisher surveillance software to infiltrate their electronic devices while they were living in London, causing psychological harm. The appellate court last autumn upheld a high court ruling that the 1978 immunity legislation does not grant Bahrain sovereign immunity 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 act or omission that occurred in the United Kingdom.

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

Software Capabilities

Legal representatives claimed that "FinSpy software can collect vast amounts of data from compromised equipment, including recording every keystroke, voice calls, text communications, emails, scheduling information, real-time chats, contacts lists, browsing history, images, databases, files and recordings. It allows recording of live audio from the device's microphone and visual recording device."

Judicial Analysis

The appellate court found that external control, overseas, of a electronic device located in the United Kingdom constituted an action within the UK's jurisdiction. Although the cyber intrusion took place overseas, the consequence was that the territorial sovereignty of the United Kingdom had been violated.

A overseas nation does not have protection for personal injury caused by an act in the UK, although certain acts take place abroad. The court also determined that "personal injury" as interpreted in the state immunity act included standalone psychiatric injury.

Bahrain's Stance

The appellate decision noted that Bahrain rejected the claimants' allegations of compromising the dissidents' computers with surveillance software, but the initial court justice "found, on the based on specialist testimony, that the plaintiffs had discharged the responsibility upon them of demonstrating on the balance of probabilities that their computers were infected by malicious software by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, welcomed with the supreme court hearing, stating: "I am pleased with the outcome so far of the legal proceedings regarding the hacking of my electronic device. It delivers a strong signal to foreign governments who target their non-violent critics with various means including violating their personal affairs and equipment."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing repeated arrests within the country, stated: "This process has now reached the highest court in the country. I have a duty to expose what I experienced when I am convinced Bahrain compromised my computer. The impact has been profound – especially for those who had confidence 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 permitted to hide behind state protection to advance their transnational repression on UK territory."

The two individuals have had their Bahraini citizenship revoked.

Attorney Commentary

A lead attorney stated: "This case raise essential issues about accountability for the use of invasive monitoring systems against political activists and members of civil society. Our represented individuals, and many others we advocate for, have waited a considerable period for resolution on these matters."