🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is set to claim before the Britain's highest judicial body that it possesses state immunity from allegations that it deployed spyware on the computers of two dissidents during their residence in London.

Legal Battle Context

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

If Bahrain succeed, the decision could have broader implications for how authoritarian states employ digital spyware to monitor and potentially harass political dissidents living in the United Kingdom.

Key Focus of Supreme Court Hearing

The legal proceedings, starting this Wednesday, will concentrate on whether the two men have the standing to claim compensation despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than determining whether damages are applicable.

Claims and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahraini government used Germany-produced FinFisher surveillance software to infiltrate their electronic devices while they were residing in London, resulting in psychological harm. The court of appeal last October upheld a high court ruling that the 1978 immunity legislation does not grant Bahrain state protection against their allegations.

Article 5 of the legislation specifies that a country does not have protection from claims for personal injury caused by an act or omission that occurred in the United Kingdom.

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

Software Capabilities

Attorneys stated that "FinSpy software can gather large quantities of information from compromised equipment, including capturing every keystroke, telephone conversations, text communications, emails, calendar records, real-time chats, contacts lists, browsing history, images, databases, documents and recordings. It enables recording of live audio from the device's microphone and camera."

Judicial Analysis

The court of appeal determined that external control, from abroad, of a computer situated in the United Kingdom represented an act within the British territory. Although the hacking occurred abroad, the consequence was that the national jurisdiction of the UK had been violated.

A foreign state does not have protection for personal injury resulting from an action in the United Kingdom, even if some acts occur overseas. The court also determined that "psychological harm" as defined in the immunity legislation included standalone psychiatric injury.

Defense Position

The appellate decision noted that Bahrain rejected the claimants' allegations of compromising the dissidents' computers with surveillance software, but the high court judge "found, on the based on specialist testimony, that the claimants had met the responsibility upon them of proving on the preponderance of evidence that their computers were infected by malicious software by Bahraini representatives."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a co-founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the supreme court hearing, saying: "I am pleased with the outcome so far of the court case regarding the cyber intrusion of my electronic device. It sends a clear message to foreign governments who pursue their peaceful political opponents with various means including intruding into their private lives and equipment."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing frequent detention within the country, stated: "Our journey has now arrived at the supreme judicial body in the country. I have a duty to expose what I experienced when I am convinced Bahrain compromised my computer. The impact has been profound – particularly for those who placed their trust in me, and for my friends and family."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be held accountable for wrecking our lives. They cannot be allowed to hide behind diplomatic immunity to pursue their transnational repression on British soil."

Both men have had their Bahraini citizenship withdrawn.

Legal Perspective

A senior legal representative stated: "This case present essential issues about responsibility for the deployment of invasive monitoring systems against political activists and human rights defenders. Our clients, and numerous additional people we represent, have waited a considerable period for resolution on these matters."