🔗 Share this article

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

Court Proceedings Context

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

If Bahrain prevail, the decision could have wider consequences for how authoritarian governments utilize digital spyware to monitor and possibly target opposition figures living in the United Kingdom.

Central Issue of Legal Proceedings

The legal proceedings, scheduled to begin this Wednesday, will concentrate on whether the two individuals have the legal right to seek compensation despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than determining whether damages are applicable.

Allegations and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahraini government used German-made FinFisher spyware to infiltrate their computers while they were living in London, resulting in psychological harm. The court of appeal last October upheld a high court ruling that the 1978 immunity legislation does not provide Bahrain state protection against their claims.

Article 5 of the act specifies that a state does not have immunity from legal actions for personal injury resulting from an act or omission that took place in the United Kingdom.

The ruling will also provide clarity regarding additional spyware claims being handled by law firms on behalf of affected individuals.

Software Capabilities

Attorneys claimed that "FinSpy software can gather large quantities of information from compromised equipment, including capturing every keystroke, voice calls, text communications, electronic mail, calendar records, real-time chats, address books, browsing history, photos, data collections, documents and recordings. It allows capture of live audio from the device's microphone and camera."

Legal Interpretation

The court of appeal found that external control, overseas, of a electronic device situated in the United Kingdom represented an action within the British territory. Even if the cyber intrusion took place overseas, the consequence was that the national jurisdiction of the UK had suffered interference.

A overseas nation does not have immunity for personal injury caused by an act in the United Kingdom, although certain activities occur overseas. The court also determined that "personal injury" as interpreted in the state immunity act encompassed 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 initial court justice "found, on the based on specialist testimony, that the plaintiffs had discharged the responsibility upon them of demonstrating on the balance of probabilities that their devices were compromised by spyware by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a co-founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the supreme court hearing, saying: "I'm satisfied 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 multiple methods including intruding into their personal affairs and devices."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing repeated arrests within the country, commented: "Our journey has now arrived at the supreme judicial body in the country. I have a responsibility to expose what I experienced when I am convinced Bahrain hacked my computer. The impact has been devastating – particularly for those who had confidence in me, and for my friends and family."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be held accountable for wrecking our lives. They cannot be permitted to hide behind diplomatic immunity to pursue their transnational repression on UK territory."

Both men have had their nationality revoked.

Legal Perspective

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