🔗 Share this article

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

Court Proceedings Background

Bahrain has previously lost its immunity argument in the lower court and court of appeal. Taking the matter to the supreme court demonstrates the importance of this issue for the nation's global standing.

Should Bahrain succeed, the ruling could have broader consequences for how authoritarian governments utilize digital spyware to track and possibly target opposition figures residing in the UK.

Key Focus of Legal Proceedings

The legal proceedings, scheduled to begin this midweek, will concentrate on whether the two men have the standing to seek compensation despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than addressing whether damages are applicable.

Claims and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahrain authorities used German-made FinFisher spyware to infiltrate their electronic devices while they were residing in London, resulting in psychological harm. The court of appeal last October supported a high court ruling that the 1978 immunity legislation does not provide Bahrain sovereign immunity against their allegations.

Section 5 of the legislation specifies that a country does not have immunity from legal actions for personal injury resulting from an act or omission that took place in the UK.

The ruling will also offer guidance regarding additional surveillance allegations being pursued by law firms on behalf of clients.

Software Capabilities

Attorneys claimed that "The surveillance program can gather vast amounts of data from infected devices, including recording all keyboard inputs, voice calls, text communications, emails, scheduling information, instant messaging, address books, internet activity, photos, data collections, documents and videos. It enables capture of real-time sound from the device's microphone and camera."

Legal Interpretation

The court of appeal determined that external control, from abroad, of a electronic device situated in the United Kingdom constituted an act within the British territory. Even if the cyber intrusion occurred abroad, the effect was that the territorial sovereignty of the United Kingdom had been violated.

A overseas nation does not have immunity for psychological harm caused by an action in the United Kingdom, although certain acts take place overseas. The court also determined that "psychological harm" as defined in the immunity legislation included independent psychological damage.

Defense Position

The appellate decision stated that Bahrain rejected the accusers' claims of compromising the activists' devices with surveillance software, but the high court judge "determined, on the based on specialist testimony, that the claimants had discharged the responsibility upon them of proving 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 opposition group al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction 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 overseas authorities who pursue their peaceful political opponents with various means including violating their personal affairs and equipment."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after facing repeated arrests within the nation, stated: "This process has now arrived at the highest court in the land. I have a duty to reveal what I experienced when I am convinced Bahrain hacked my device. The effect has been devastating – especially for those who had confidence in me, and for my loved ones."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be held accountable for wrecking our lives. They cannot be allowed to use diplomatic immunity to advance their transnational repression on UK territory."

Both men have had their Bahraini citizenship withdrawn.

Attorney Commentary

A lead attorney stated: "This case raise fundamental questions about accountability for the use of invasive monitoring systems against political activists and members of civil society. Our represented individuals, and numerous additional people we advocate for, have waited a long time for clarity on these matters."