🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is set to argue before the UK's supreme court that it enjoys sovereign immunity from allegations that it installed spyware on the devices of two dissidents during their stay in the UK capital.

Legal Battle Context

Bahrain has previously lost its sovereign immunity claim in the lower court and appellate court. Bringing the matter to the highest court highlights the significance of this issue for the nation's international reputation.

Should Bahrain succeed, the ruling could have broader implications for how authoritarian states utilize surveillance technology to track and possibly target 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 individuals have the legal right to claim compensation despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than determining whether damages are applicable.

Allegations and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahraini government used German-made FinFisher surveillance software to compromise their electronic devices while they were living in London, resulting in psychological harm. The appellate court last October supported a high court ruling that the 1978 immunity legislation does not provide Bahrain state protection against their claims.

Section 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 provide clarity regarding other surveillance allegations being pursued by legal teams on behalf of affected individuals.

Technical Details

Legal representatives stated that "FinSpy software can collect large quantities of data from infected devices, including recording every keystroke, voice calls, text communications, electronic mail, calendar records, real-time chats, address books, browsing history, photos, data collections, files and videos. It allows capture of live audio from the device's microphone and visual recording device."

Judicial Analysis

The appellate court found that remote manipulation, overseas, of a electronic device located in the United Kingdom constituted an action within the British territory. Even if the cyber intrusion occurred abroad, the consequence was that the territorial sovereignty of the UK had been violated.

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

Bahrain's Stance

The appeal court ruling noted that Bahrain denied the accusers' claims of infecting the activists' devices with surveillance software, but the high court judge "determined, on the based on specialist testimony, that the claimants had discharged the burden upon them of demonstrating on the balance of probabilities that their computers were compromised by malicious software by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the legal proceedings, stating: "I'm satisfied with the outcome so far of the court case regarding the cyber intrusion of my electronic device. It sends a strong signal to overseas authorities who target their peaceful political opponents with multiple methods including violating their private lives and devices."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after facing repeated arrests within the nation, commented: "Our journey has now arrived at the supreme judicial body in the country. I have a responsibility to expose what I endured when I believe Bahrain hacked my computer. The effect has been profound – particularly for those who placed their trust in me, and for my loved ones."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be held accountable for destroying our lives. They cannot be allowed to hide behind state protection to pursue their cross-border persecution on British soil."

The two individuals have had their Bahraini citizenship withdrawn.

Legal Perspective

A senior legal representative commented: "These proceedings present fundamental questions about responsibility for the deployment of intrusive surveillance technology against political activists and human rights defenders. Our clients, and many others we represent, have anticipated a long time for clarity on these matters."