🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is set to argue before the Britain's highest judicial body that it enjoys sovereign immunity from allegations that it deployed surveillance software on the computers of two dissidents during their stay in London.

Court Proceedings Context

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

Should Bahrain succeed, the decision could have wider implications for how authoritarian states utilize digital spyware to track and possibly target political dissidents living in the United Kingdom.

Central Issue of Legal Proceedings

The supreme court hearing, scheduled to begin this Wednesday, will concentrate on whether the two men have the standing to seek damages despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than addressing whether damages are applicable.

Claims and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahrain authorities used Germany-produced FinFisher surveillance software to compromise their electronic devices while they were residing in London, resulting in emotional distress. The court of appeal last October upheld a high court ruling that the 1978 immunity legislation does not provide Bahrain state protection against their allegations.

Article 5 of the legislation specifies that a state does not have immunity from claims for physical or psychological harm resulting from an act or omission that took place in the UK.

The decision will also provide clarity regarding additional spyware claims being pursued by legal teams on behalf of affected individuals.

Software Capabilities

Attorneys stated that "FinSpy software can collect vast amounts of information from compromised equipment, including capturing every keystroke, voice calls, messages, emails, scheduling information, real-time chats, contacts lists, internet activity, photos, databases, documents and videos. It enables recording of real-time sound from the equipment's audio input and visual recording device."

Judicial Analysis

The court of appeal found that remote manipulation, overseas, of a electronic device situated in the UK represented an act within the UK's jurisdiction. Although the cyber intrusion occurred abroad, the consequence was that the national jurisdiction of the United Kingdom had suffered interference.

A overseas nation does not have protection for psychological harm caused by an action in the United Kingdom, even if some acts occur abroad. The court also determined that "personal injury" as defined in the state immunity act included independent psychological damage.

Bahrain's Stance

The appeal court ruling stated that Bahrain denied the accusers' claims of compromising the dissidents' computers with surveillance software, but the initial court justice "found, on the basis of specialist testimony, that the plaintiffs had met the responsibility upon them of demonstrating on the preponderance of evidence that their devices were infected by spyware by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the supreme court hearing, 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 foreign governments who pursue their peaceful political opponents with multiple methods including violating their personal affairs and devices."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after facing frequent detention within the nation, stated: "Our journey has now reached the highest court in the land. I have a responsibility to expose what I experienced when I am convinced Bahrain compromised my computer. The impact has been devastating – particularly 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 pursue their cross-border persecution on British soil."

The two individuals have had their nationality 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 long time for resolution on these matters."