🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is preparing to claim before the Britain's highest judicial body that it possesses state immunity from allegations that it installed surveillance software on the computers of two dissidents during their residence in the UK capital.

Legal Battle Background

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

If Bahrain succeed, the ruling could have broader consequences for how authoritarian governments employ digital spyware to monitor and possibly target opposition figures residing in the UK.

Key Focus of Legal Proceedings

The legal proceedings, scheduled to begin this midweek, will concentrate on whether the two individuals have the standing to claim compensation despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than addressing whether compensation is warranted.

Claims and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahrain authorities used Germany-produced FinFisher surveillance software to compromise their computers while they were living in London, resulting in psychological harm. The court of appeal last autumn upheld a high court ruling that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not grant Bahrain state protection against their allegations.

Article 5 of the legislation specifies that a country does not have protection from legal actions for personal injury resulting from an act or omission that took place in the UK.

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

Technical Details

Attorneys stated that "The surveillance program can gather vast amounts of data from infected devices, including recording all keyboard inputs, voice calls, text communications, electronic mail, scheduling information, instant messaging, address books, browsing history, photos, databases, files and recordings. It allows recording of live audio from the device's microphone and visual recording device."

Legal Interpretation

The court of appeal determined that external control, from abroad, of a electronic device located in the UK represented an act within the British territory. Even if the cyber intrusion took place overseas, the consequence was that the territorial sovereignty of the UK had been violated.

A foreign state does not have protection for psychological harm resulting from an action in the United Kingdom, although some acts occur abroad. The judicial body also determined that "personal injury" as interpreted in the state immunity act included independent psychological damage.

Defense Position

The appellate decision stated that Bahrain rejected the claimants' allegations of infecting the dissidents' computers with surveillance software, but the initial court justice "determined, on the based on specialist testimony, that the claimants had met the responsibility upon them of demonstrating on the balance of probabilities that their devices were compromised by spyware by Bahraini representatives."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a co-founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, welcomed with the supreme court hearing, stating: "I am pleased with the outcome so far of the court case regarding the cyber intrusion of my electronic device. It delivers a clear message to overseas authorities who target their non-violent critics with various means including intruding into their private lives and devices."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing repeated arrests within the nation, commented: "This process has now arrived at the highest court in the land. I have a duty to reveal what I endured when I believe Bahrain hacked my computer. The effect 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 permitted to use diplomatic immunity to advance their cross-border persecution on UK territory."

Both men have had their Bahraini citizenship revoked.

Attorney Commentary

A lead attorney commented: "These proceedings present essential issues about accountability for the deployment of intrusive surveillance technology against civil society members and human rights defenders. Our clients, and numerous additional people we advocate for, have waited a considerable period for resolution on these matters."