🔗 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 surveillance software on the devices of two dissidents during their stay in the UK capital.

Court Proceedings Background

Bahrain has been denied its sovereign immunity claim in both high court and court of appeal. Taking the matter to the highest court highlights the significance of this issue for the country's global standing.

If Bahrain succeed, the ruling could have wider consequences for how authoritarian states employ surveillance technology to track and potentially harass opposition figures residing in the UK.

Key Focus of Legal Proceedings

The supreme court hearing, scheduled to begin this midweek, will focus on whether the two men have the legal right to claim compensation despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than determining whether compensation is warranted.

Claims and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahrain authorities used Germany-produced FinFisher spyware to compromise their electronic devices while they were living in London, resulting in psychological harm. The appellate court last autumn supported a high court ruling that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not grant Bahrain sovereign immunity against their allegations.

Article 5 of the act states that a country does not have protection from legal actions for personal injury caused by an action or inaction that took place in the UK.

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

Software Capabilities

Attorneys claimed that "FinSpy software can gather large quantities of information from infected devices, including capturing all keyboard inputs, telephone conversations, text communications, emails, calendar records, instant messaging, address books, internet activity, photos, data collections, files and videos. It allows recording of live audio from the device's microphone and camera."

Legal Interpretation

The court of appeal determined that remote manipulation, from abroad, of a computer located in the United Kingdom constituted an act within the British territory. Although the hacking occurred abroad, the effect was that the territorial sovereignty of the United Kingdom had suffered interference.

A foreign state does not have immunity for psychological harm resulting from an action in the United Kingdom, even if certain acts take place abroad. The judicial body also determined that "psychological harm" as defined in the state immunity act included standalone psychiatric injury.

Defense Position

The appellate decision stated that Bahrain denied the accusers' claims of compromising the activists' devices with surveillance software, but the high court judge "determined, on the basis of specialist testimony, that the plaintiffs had met the responsibility upon them of demonstrating on the preponderance of evidence that their devices were compromised by malicious software by Bahraini representatives."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the legal proceedings, stating: "I am pleased with the outcome so far of the court case regarding the hacking of my computer. It delivers a clear message to overseas authorities who target their peaceful political opponents with multiple methods including intruding into their private lives and devices."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after facing frequent detention within the nation, commented: "This process has now reached the supreme judicial body in the land. I have a responsibility to reveal what I endured when I am convinced Bahrain hacked my computer. The effect 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 destroying our lives. They cannot be allowed to use diplomatic immunity to advance their transnational repression on British soil."

The two individuals have had their nationality revoked.

Attorney Commentary

A lead attorney stated: "This case present essential issues about accountability for the use of invasive monitoring systems against political activists and human rights defenders. Our clients, and many others we advocate for, have waited a considerable period for resolution on these matters."