🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is set to claim before the Britain's highest judicial body that it possesses state immunity from allegations that it deployed spyware on the computers of two activists during their residence in London.

Court Proceedings Background

Bahrain has previously lost its immunity argument in the high court and court of appeal. Bringing the matter to the highest court highlights the significance of this issue for the nation's global standing.

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

Central Issue of Supreme Court Hearing

The legal proceedings, scheduled to begin this midweek, will focus on whether the two individuals have the legal right to seek compensation despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than determining whether compensation is warranted.

Claims and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahraini government used German-made FinFisher surveillance software to infiltrate their electronic devices while they were residing in London, causing emotional distress. The appellate court last October upheld a previous court decision that the 1978 immunity legislation does not provide Bahrain sovereign immunity against their claims.

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

The ruling will also offer guidance regarding additional spyware claims being handled by legal teams on behalf of affected individuals.

Technical Details

Attorneys stated that "The surveillance program can gather large quantities of data from infected devices, including recording every keystroke, voice calls, text communications, emails, calendar records, real-time chats, contacts lists, internet activity, images, databases, documents and recordings. It allows capture of real-time sound from the equipment's audio input and visual recording device."

Legal Interpretation

The appellate court determined that remote manipulation, from abroad, of a electronic device located in the United Kingdom represented an act within the British territory. Although the cyber intrusion took place overseas, the consequence was that the national jurisdiction of the United Kingdom had been violated.

A foreign state does not have immunity for psychological harm caused by an action in the UK, even if some activities occur overseas. The court also determined that "personal injury" as defined in the immunity legislation included standalone psychiatric injury.

Bahrain's Stance

The appellate decision stated that Bahrain denied the claimants' allegations of infecting the dissidents' computers with spyware, but the high court judge "determined, on the based on specialist testimony, that the plaintiffs had met the responsibility upon them of proving on the balance of probabilities that their computers were compromised by spyware by Bahraini representatives."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a co-founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the supreme court hearing, saying: "I'm satisfied with the progress to date of the legal proceedings regarding the cyber intrusion of my electronic device. It sends a strong signal to foreign governments who target their non-violent critics with multiple methods including violating their personal affairs and equipment."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after facing frequent detention within the nation, stated: "This process has now arrived at the supreme judicial body in the land. I have a duty to expose what I endured when I believe Bahrain compromised my computer. The impact has been profound – particularly for those who placed their trust in me, and for my friends and family."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be held accountable for wrecking our lives. They cannot be allowed to hide behind diplomatic immunity to advance their cross-border persecution on British soil."

The two individuals have had their nationality revoked.

Legal Perspective

A lead attorney commented: "These proceedings present essential issues about accountability for the use of invasive monitoring systems against political activists and members of civil society. Our clients, and numerous additional people we advocate for, have waited a long time for resolution on these issues."