🔗 Share this article

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

Legal Battle Background

Bahrain has been denied its immunity argument in both lower court and court of appeal. Taking the matter to the highest court demonstrates the importance of this matter for the nation's global standing.

Should Bahrain succeed, the decision could have wider consequences for how authoritarian states utilize digital spyware to monitor and possibly target opposition figures residing in the United Kingdom.

Central Issue of Supreme Court Hearing

The legal proceedings, starting this midweek, will focus on whether the two men have the legal right to seek compensation despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than determining whether compensation is warranted.

Allegations and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahraini government used Germany-produced FinFisher spyware to infiltrate their computers while they were residing in London, causing emotional distress. The court of appeal last autumn supported a previous court decision that the 1978 immunity legislation does not grant Bahrain sovereign immunity against their allegations.

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

The decision will also offer guidance regarding additional surveillance allegations being pursued by legal teams on behalf of affected individuals.

Software Capabilities

Legal representatives claimed that "The surveillance program can collect vast amounts of data from compromised equipment, including recording every keystroke, voice calls, text communications, electronic mail, scheduling information, real-time chats, contacts lists, browsing history, photos, data collections, files and recordings. It allows recording of live audio from the equipment's audio input and visual recording device."

Legal Interpretation

The appellate court determined that remote manipulation, overseas, of a computer situated in the UK constituted an action within the UK's jurisdiction. Although the hacking occurred abroad, the consequence was that the national jurisdiction of the United Kingdom had been violated.

A overseas nation does not have immunity for psychological harm resulting from an act in the United Kingdom, although certain acts take place overseas. The judicial body also determined that "personal injury" as defined in the immunity legislation included standalone psychiatric injury.

Defense Position

The appellate decision noted that Bahrain denied the claimants' allegations of infecting the activists' devices with spyware, but the initial court justice "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 malicious software by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, welcomed with the supreme court hearing, saying: "I'm satisfied with the progress to date of the court case regarding the cyber intrusion of my computer. It delivers a strong signal to foreign governments who target their non-violent critics with multiple methods including intruding into their personal affairs and equipment."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after facing frequent detention within the country, commented: "This process has now reached the highest court in the land. I have a responsibility to expose what I experienced when I am convinced Bahrain hacked my device. The effect has been profound – especially for those who had confidence in me, and for my loved ones."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be brought to justice for destroying our lives. They cannot be permitted to hide behind diplomatic immunity to advance their transnational repression on UK territory."

Both men have had their Bahraini citizenship withdrawn.

Legal Perspective

A lead attorney commented: "This case raise fundamental questions about responsibility for the deployment of intrusive surveillance technology against political activists and human rights defenders. Our clients, and many others we advocate for, have anticipated a long time for resolution on these issues."