🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is preparing to argue before the Britain's highest judicial body that it possesses sovereign immunity from accusations that it installed spyware on the computers of two activists during their residence in the UK capital.

Legal Battle Context

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

If Bahrain prevail, the ruling could have broader implications for how authoritarian governments employ digital spyware to monitor and possibly target political dissidents living in the United Kingdom.

Key Focus of Legal Proceedings

The legal proceedings, scheduled to begin this Wednesday, will focus on whether the two individuals have the legal right to seek damages despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than determining whether damages are applicable.

Claims and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahrain authorities used Germany-produced FinFisher surveillance software to infiltrate their computers while they were residing in London, causing psychological harm. The court of appeal last October supported a high court ruling that the 1978 immunity legislation does not grant Bahrain state protection against their allegations.

Article 5 of the legislation states that a country does not have protection 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 additional spyware claims being pursued by law firms on behalf of clients.

Technical Details

Legal representatives stated that "FinSpy software can collect vast amounts of data from infected devices, including recording every keystroke, telephone conversations, text communications, electronic mail, calendar records, real-time chats, address books, internet activity, images, data collections, documents and recordings. It enables recording of real-time sound from the device's microphone and visual recording device."

Legal Interpretation

The appellate court found that external control, from abroad, of a computer located in the UK constituted an act within the UK's jurisdiction. Although the cyber intrusion took place overseas, the effect was that the national jurisdiction of the UK had been violated.

A foreign state does not have immunity for psychological harm caused by an action in the United Kingdom, even if certain acts occur abroad. The judicial body also ruled that "psychological harm" as interpreted in the state immunity act included independent psychological damage.

Bahrain's Stance

The appeal court ruling noted that Bahrain denied the accusers' claims of compromising the activists' devices with spyware, but the high court judge "determined, on the basis of specialist testimony, that the plaintiffs had discharged the burden upon them of demonstrating on the balance of probabilities that their devices were infected by spyware by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a co-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 legal proceedings regarding the hacking of my computer. It delivers a strong signal to foreign governments who pursue their peaceful political opponents with multiple methods including violating their personal affairs and devices."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after facing repeated arrests within the nation, stated: "This process has now reached the highest court in the country. I have a responsibility to reveal what I endured when I believe Bahrain hacked my device. The impact has been profound – especially for those who placed their trust in me, and for my friends and family."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be brought to justice 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 Bahraini citizenship revoked.

Attorney Commentary

A lead attorney commented: "These proceedings raise essential issues about accountability for the deployment of intrusive surveillance technology against political activists and human rights defenders. Our clients, and numerous additional people we advocate for, have anticipated a long time for resolution on these issues."