🔗 Share this article

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

Legal Battle Background

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

Should Bahrain prevail, the ruling could have broader consequences for how authoritarian states utilize digital spyware to track and possibly target political dissidents residing in the UK.

Central Issue of Legal Proceedings

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 immunity claim, rather than determining whether damages are applicable.

Claims and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahraini government used German-made FinFisher surveillance software to compromise their computers while they were residing in London, resulting in emotional distress. The appellate court last October supported a previous court decision that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not provide Bahrain state protection against their allegations.

Section 5 of the act states that a state does not have protection from claims for personal injury caused by an act or omission that occurred in the United Kingdom.

The decision will also offer guidance regarding additional spyware claims being pursued by legal teams on behalf of clients.

Software Capabilities

Attorneys claimed that "The surveillance program can gather vast amounts of information from compromised equipment, including capturing all keyboard inputs, telephone conversations, messages, electronic mail, scheduling information, instant messaging, address books, browsing history, images, data collections, documents and recordings. It enables recording of live audio from the device's microphone and camera."

Legal Interpretation

The appellate court found that remote manipulation, overseas, of a computer situated in the UK constituted an action within the UK's jurisdiction. Even if the cyber intrusion occurred abroad, the effect was that the national jurisdiction of the UK had been violated.

A foreign state does not have immunity for personal injury caused by an action in the UK, although certain acts take place abroad. The judicial body also determined that "psychological harm" as defined in the state immunity act encompassed standalone psychiatric injury.

Bahrain's Stance

The appellate decision noted that Bahrain denied the accusers' claims of compromising the activists' devices with spyware, but the initial court justice "found, on the basis of expert evidence, that the claimants had met the burden upon them of proving on the balance of probabilities that their devices were compromised by malicious software by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a co-founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, welcomed with the legal proceedings, stating: "I am pleased with the outcome so far of the legal proceedings regarding the cyber intrusion of my computer. It delivers a clear message to foreign governments who target their non-violent critics with various means including violating their personal affairs and equipment."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing frequent detention within the nation, stated: "This process has now arrived at the supreme judicial body in the land. I have a responsibility to reveal what I endured when I believe Bahrain compromised my device. The effect has been profound – especially for those who had confidence in me, and for my friends and family."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be brought to justice for wrecking our lives. They cannot be allowed to hide behind diplomatic immunity to pursue their cross-border persecution on UK territory."

The two individuals have had their Bahraini citizenship revoked.

Legal Perspective

A lead attorney commented: "This case present fundamental questions about accountability for the use of intrusive surveillance technology against civil society members and members of civil society. Our clients, and many others we advocate for, have anticipated a long time for resolution on these issues."