🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is preparing to argue before the Britain's highest judicial body that it enjoys sovereign immunity from accusations that it installed spyware on the devices of two dissidents during their residence in the UK capital.

Court Proceedings Background

The Gulf country has been denied its immunity argument in the lower court and appellate court. Bringing the case to the highest court demonstrates the significance of this matter for the nation's international reputation.

If Bahrain succeed, the ruling could have broader implications for how authoritarian governments employ digital spyware to monitor and potentially harass opposition figures residing in the United Kingdom.

Central Issue of Supreme Court Hearing

The legal proceedings, scheduled to begin this midweek, will focus on whether the two individuals have the standing to claim compensation despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than addressing whether compensation is warranted.

Allegations and Evidence

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

Article 5 of the legislation states that a country does not have protection from legal actions for physical or psychological harm caused by an action or inaction that took place in the UK.

The decision will also provide clarity regarding additional spyware claims being handled by legal teams on behalf of affected individuals.

Software Capabilities

Legal representatives stated that "The surveillance program can gather vast amounts of information from compromised equipment, including recording every keystroke, voice calls, text communications, electronic mail, calendar records, real-time chats, address books, internet activity, photos, databases, documents and videos. It enables capture of live audio from the equipment's audio input and camera."

Judicial Analysis

The appellate court found that external control, overseas, of a computer situated in the United Kingdom constituted an act within the UK's jurisdiction. Even if the cyber intrusion occurred abroad, the effect was that the territorial sovereignty of the United Kingdom had suffered interference.

A overseas nation does not have protection 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 independent psychological damage.

Defense Position

The appeal court ruling stated that Bahrain rejected the accusers' claims of compromising the dissidents' computers with spyware, but the high court judge "determined, on the based on specialist testimony, that the plaintiffs had met the responsibility upon them of demonstrating on the preponderance of evidence that their computers were compromised by spyware by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, welcomed with the legal proceedings, saying: "I am pleased 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 pursue their peaceful political opponents with various means including intruding into their private lives and devices."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing frequent detention within the country, commented: "Our journey has now arrived at the supreme judicial body in the country. I have a responsibility to reveal what I experienced when I believe Bahrain hacked my device. The effect has been profound – especially for those who placed their trust in me, and for my loved ones."

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

Both men have had their nationality revoked.

Attorney Commentary

A senior legal representative commented: "These proceedings raise fundamental questions about accountability for the use of invasive monitoring systems against civil society members and human rights defenders. Our clients, and numerous additional people we represent, have waited a considerable period for resolution on these matters."