🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is set to claim before the Britain's highest judicial body that it enjoys sovereign immunity from allegations that it deployed spyware on the devices of two activists during their stay in London.

Court Proceedings Context

The Gulf country has previously lost its immunity argument in both lower court and appellate court. Taking the case to the highest court highlights the importance of this issue for the country's global standing.

If Bahrain prevail, the ruling could have wider consequences for how authoritarian states utilize digital spyware to monitor and possibly target political dissidents living in the UK.

Key Focus of Legal Proceedings

The legal proceedings, starting this Wednesday, will concentrate on whether the two individuals have the standing to seek damages 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 surveillance software to infiltrate their electronic devices while they were living in London, causing psychological harm. The court of appeal last October supported a high court ruling that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not grant Bahrain state protection against their allegations.

Section 5 of the legislation states that a state does not have immunity from claims for personal injury resulting from an act or omission that occurred in the UK.

The ruling will also offer guidance regarding other surveillance allegations being handled by law firms on behalf of affected individuals.

Software Capabilities

Attorneys claimed that "FinSpy software can collect vast amounts of information from compromised equipment, including recording every keystroke, voice calls, text communications, electronic mail, calendar records, real-time chats, address books, browsing history, photos, databases, files and recordings. It enables capture of real-time sound from the device's microphone and visual recording device."

Legal Interpretation

The appellate court found that remote manipulation, overseas, of a computer situated in the United Kingdom constituted an act within the British territory. 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 psychological harm caused by an act in the United Kingdom, even if certain acts take place overseas. The judicial body also ruled that "personal injury" as interpreted in the state immunity act encompassed independent psychological damage.

Defense Position

The appeal court ruling noted that Bahrain rejected the claimants' allegations of compromising the activists' devices with surveillance software, but the high court judge "determined, on the based on specialist testimony, that the plaintiffs had discharged the burden upon them of proving on the preponderance of evidence that their devices were infected by malicious software by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a co-founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the supreme court hearing, stating: "I am pleased with the progress to date of the legal proceedings regarding the cyber intrusion of my computer. It delivers a strong signal to foreign governments who target their peaceful political opponents with multiple methods including violating their personal affairs and devices."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing repeated arrests within the country, commented: "This process has now reached the supreme judicial body in the country. I have a responsibility to reveal what I experienced when I am convinced Bahrain hacked my computer. The effect has been profound – especially for those who placed their trust in me, and for my friends and family."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be brought to justice for wrecking our lives. They cannot be permitted to use diplomatic immunity to pursue their transnational repression on British soil."

The two individuals have had their nationality withdrawn.

Legal Perspective

A lead attorney commented: "This case raise fundamental questions about accountability for the use of invasive monitoring systems against political activists and members of civil society. Our represented individuals, and numerous additional people we advocate for, have waited a considerable period for resolution on these issues."