🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is preparing to argue before the Britain's highest judicial body that it possesses state immunity from allegations that it installed surveillance software on the devices of two activists during their stay in London.

Legal Battle Context

Bahrain has been denied its immunity argument in both lower court and court of appeal. Bringing the case to the highest court highlights the importance of this issue for the country's international reputation.

If Bahrain prevail, the ruling could have broader implications for how authoritarian governments utilize surveillance technology to monitor and potentially harass political dissidents living in the United Kingdom.

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 immunity claim, rather than addressing whether damages are applicable.

Allegations and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahrain authorities used German-made FinFisher surveillance software to infiltrate their computers while they were living in London, causing psychological harm. The appellate court last October supported a high court ruling that the 1978 immunity legislation does not provide Bahrain sovereign immunity against their allegations.

Article 5 of the legislation states that a state does not have immunity from claims for personal injury resulting from an act or omission that took place in the UK.

The decision will also provide clarity regarding other spyware claims being handled by legal teams on behalf of clients.

Software Capabilities

Attorneys stated that "The surveillance program can collect vast amounts of data from compromised equipment, including capturing all keyboard inputs, voice calls, text communications, electronic mail, calendar records, instant messaging, contacts lists, internet activity, photos, databases, documents and videos. It allows capture of real-time sound from the equipment's audio input and camera."

Legal Interpretation

The appellate court found that remote manipulation, overseas, of a computer situated in the United Kingdom constituted an act within the UK's jurisdiction. Although the cyber intrusion occurred abroad, the consequence was that the national jurisdiction of the UK had been violated.

A foreign state does not have immunity for personal injury resulting from an action in the United Kingdom, although some acts take place overseas. The judicial body also determined that "personal injury" as interpreted in the immunity legislation included standalone psychiatric injury.

Bahrain's Stance

The appellate decision noted that Bahrain denied the claimants' allegations of infecting the activists' devices with surveillance software, but the high court judge "determined, on the basis of expert evidence, that the claimants had discharged the responsibility upon them of proving on the preponderance of evidence that their devices were compromised by spyware by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a co-founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the legal proceedings, saying: "I am pleased with the outcome so far of the court case regarding the hacking of my computer. It delivers a clear message to overseas authorities who target their peaceful political opponents with various means including violating their personal affairs and equipment."

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 expose what I experienced when I am convinced Bahrain compromised my device. The effect has been profound – especially for those who placed their trust in me, and for my friends and family."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be held accountable for destroying our lives. They cannot be permitted to hide behind diplomatic immunity to advance their cross-border persecution on UK territory."

Both men have had their nationality withdrawn.

Attorney Commentary

A lead attorney commented: "These proceedings present essential issues about accountability for the use of invasive monitoring systems against civil society members and members of civil society. Our represented individuals, and many others we represent, have waited a long time for clarity on these issues."