🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is set to claim before the Britain's highest judicial body that it enjoys state immunity from allegations that it deployed surveillance software on the computers of two activists during their stay in London.

Court Proceedings Context

The Gulf country has been denied its sovereign immunity claim in the lower court and court of appeal. Taking the matter to the supreme court highlights the importance of this matter for the nation's international reputation.

Should Bahrain prevail, the decision could have broader implications for how authoritarian states utilize surveillance technology to monitor and possibly target opposition figures living in the United Kingdom.

Central Issue of Legal Proceedings

The supreme court hearing, scheduled to begin this Wednesday, will focus on whether the two individuals have the standing to claim damages despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than determining whether damages are applicable.

Claims and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahraini government used Germany-produced FinFisher spyware to compromise their computers while they were living in London, causing emotional distress. The court of appeal last autumn supported a previous court decision that the 1978 immunity legislation does not provide Bahrain state protection against their allegations.

Article 5 of the legislation specifies that a state does not have immunity from legal actions for physical or psychological harm caused by an action or inaction that took place in the United Kingdom.

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

Software Capabilities

Legal representatives claimed that "FinSpy software can collect large quantities of information from compromised equipment, including capturing all keyboard inputs, telephone conversations, text communications, electronic mail, scheduling information, instant messaging, address books, browsing history, photos, databases, files and recordings. It allows capture of real-time sound from the equipment's audio input and visual recording device."

Judicial Analysis

The appellate court determined that remote manipulation, overseas, of a electronic device located in the United Kingdom represented an action within the UK's jurisdiction. Although the cyber intrusion took place overseas, the effect was that the territorial sovereignty of the United Kingdom had been violated.

A foreign state does not have protection for psychological harm resulting from an act in the UK, although certain activities take place overseas. The court also determined that "psychological harm" as defined in the immunity legislation encompassed independent psychological damage.

Defense Position

The appeal court ruling noted that Bahrain denied the claimants' allegations of infecting the dissidents' computers with spyware, but the initial court justice "determined, on the based on specialist testimony, that the claimants had discharged the burden upon them of demonstrating on the preponderance of evidence that their devices were infected by malicious software by Bahraini representatives."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the supreme court hearing, stating: "I am pleased with the progress to date of the court case regarding the cyber intrusion of my computer. It sends a strong signal to foreign governments who pursue their non-violent critics with multiple methods including violating their private lives and devices."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing frequent detention within the nation, stated: "This process has now arrived at 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 – particularly for those who placed their trust in me, and for my friends and family."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be held accountable for wrecking our lives. They cannot be permitted to use state protection to pursue their cross-border persecution on British soil."

The two individuals have had their Bahraini citizenship revoked.

Legal Perspective

A lead attorney stated: "This case raise essential issues about accountability for the deployment of intrusive surveillance technology against political activists and human rights defenders. Our represented individuals, and numerous additional people we advocate for, have waited a considerable period for resolution on these matters."