🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is preparing 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 stay in London.

Legal Battle Background

The Gulf country has been denied its sovereign immunity claim in both high court and appellate court. Taking the matter to the highest court highlights the importance of this issue for the nation's global standing.

Should Bahrain succeed, the decision could have broader implications for how authoritarian governments utilize surveillance technology to track and potentially harass opposition figures residing in the UK.

Central Issue of Supreme Court Hearing

The supreme court hearing, starting 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 damages are applicable.

Claims and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahrain authorities used Germany-produced FinFisher spyware to infiltrate their electronic devices while they were living in London, causing psychological harm. The appellate court last autumn supported a previous court decision that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not provide Bahrain state protection against their allegations.

Article 5 of the act specifies that a country does not have immunity from legal actions for physical or psychological harm resulting from an act or omission that took place in the United Kingdom.

The ruling will also offer guidance regarding other spyware claims being pursued by law firms on behalf of clients.

Software Capabilities

Legal representatives claimed that "The surveillance program can collect vast amounts of information from infected devices, including capturing every keystroke, voice calls, messages, emails, scheduling information, real-time chats, address books, browsing history, images, databases, files and videos. It allows capture of real-time sound from the device's microphone and camera."

Legal Interpretation

The appellate court determined that remote manipulation, from abroad, of a computer located in the United Kingdom constituted an act within the British territory. Even if the cyber intrusion occurred abroad, the effect was that the territorial sovereignty of the United Kingdom had suffered interference.

A foreign state does not have immunity for personal injury resulting from an action in the United Kingdom, even if some acts occur overseas. The court also ruled that "psychological harm" as defined in the state immunity act encompassed independent psychological damage.

Defense Position

The appellate decision noted that Bahrain rejected the accusers' claims of compromising the dissidents' computers with surveillance software, but the high court judge "determined, on the basis of specialist testimony, that the plaintiffs had discharged the responsibility upon them of demonstrating on the preponderance of evidence that their computers were compromised by malicious software by Bahraini representatives."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, welcomed with the supreme court hearing, saying: "I'm satisfied with the outcome so far of the court case regarding the cyber intrusion of my computer. It sends a clear message to foreign governments who target their non-violent critics with multiple methods including violating their private lives and equipment."

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 endured when I am convinced Bahrain compromised my device. The impact has been profound – particularly for those who had confidence in me, and for my friends and family."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be held accountable for wrecking our lives. They cannot be allowed to hide behind state protection to pursue their cross-border persecution on UK territory."

Both men have had their nationality revoked.

Attorney Commentary

A lead attorney commented: "This case raise fundamental questions about responsibility for the use of intrusive surveillance technology against political activists and members of civil society. Our represented individuals, and many others we represent, have anticipated a considerable period for resolution on these issues."