🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is set to argue before the Britain's highest judicial body that it possesses state immunity from allegations that it deployed surveillance software on the devices of two dissidents during their residence in the UK capital.

Legal Battle Background

Bahrain has previously lost its sovereign immunity claim in the lower court and appellate court. Taking the case to the supreme court highlights the significance of this matter for the country's global standing.

If Bahrain prevail, the decision could have broader implications for how authoritarian governments utilize digital spyware to track and potentially harass opposition figures living in the United Kingdom.

Central Issue of Supreme Court Hearing

The legal proceedings, scheduled to begin this Wednesday, will concentrate on whether the two men have the legal right to claim damages despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than addressing whether compensation is warranted.

Claims and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahraini government used Germany-produced FinFisher surveillance software to infiltrate their computers while they were residing in London, causing psychological harm. The appellate court last autumn upheld a previous court decision that the 1978 immunity legislation does not provide Bahrain state protection against their claims.

Section 5 of the act states that a state does not have protection from legal actions for physical or psychological harm resulting from an action or inaction that occurred in the United Kingdom.

The decision will also provide clarity regarding additional surveillance allegations being handled by legal teams on behalf of clients.

Technical Details

Legal representatives stated that "FinSpy software can gather vast amounts of information from compromised equipment, including capturing every keystroke, voice calls, messages, emails, scheduling information, instant messaging, address books, browsing history, images, 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 determined that remote manipulation, from abroad, of a computer located in the UK represented an act within the British territory. Even if the hacking took place overseas, the effect was that the territorial sovereignty of the United Kingdom had suffered interference.

A overseas nation does not have immunity for personal injury caused by an act in the UK, even if certain activities occur abroad. The judicial body also determined that "personal injury" as interpreted in the immunity legislation included independent psychological damage.

Defense Position

The appeal court ruling noted that Bahrain rejected the claimants' allegations of infecting the dissidents' computers with surveillance software, but the high court judge "found, on the basis of expert evidence, that the plaintiffs had met the responsibility upon them of proving on the balance of probabilities that their computers were infected by malicious software by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the legal proceedings, stating: "I'm satisfied with the progress to date of the legal proceedings regarding the hacking of my computer. It sends a strong signal to overseas authorities who target their non-violent critics with multiple methods including violating their private lives and devices."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing frequent detention within the nation, commented: "Our journey has now reached the supreme judicial body in the country. I have a responsibility to reveal what I experienced when I believe Bahrain compromised my device. The effect has been devastating – especially for those who had confidence in me, and for my friends and family."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be held accountable for destroying our lives. They cannot be allowed to hide behind diplomatic immunity to pursue their transnational repression on UK territory."

Both men have had their nationality revoked.

Legal Perspective

A lead attorney stated: "This case raise fundamental questions about responsibility for the deployment of invasive monitoring systems against civil society members and members of civil society. Our clients, and many others we represent, have anticipated a long time for resolution on these issues."