🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is preparing to argue before the Britain's highest judicial body that it possesses sovereign immunity from allegations that it installed surveillance software on the devices of two dissidents during their stay in the UK capital.

Court Proceedings Context

Bahrain has been denied its sovereign immunity claim in the high court and appellate court. Bringing the case to the highest court highlights the importance of this issue for the country's global standing.

Should Bahrain succeed, the decision could have broader consequences for how authoritarian states utilize surveillance technology to monitor and possibly target political dissidents residing in the UK.

Key Focus of Legal Proceedings

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

Allegations and Proof

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

Article 5 of the legislation specifies that a country does not have immunity from claims 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.

Technical Details

Attorneys stated that "FinSpy software can gather vast amounts of information from compromised equipment, including recording every keystroke, voice calls, text communications, emails, scheduling information, instant messaging, address books, browsing history, images, data collections, documents and recordings. It allows capture of real-time sound from the equipment's audio input and camera."

Legal Interpretation

The court of appeal found that external control, overseas, of a electronic device located in the UK constituted an action within the British territory. Even if the cyber intrusion occurred abroad, the consequence was that the territorial sovereignty of the United Kingdom had been violated.

A overseas nation does not have immunity for personal injury resulting from an act in the UK, although some acts occur overseas. The court also determined that "psychological harm" as defined in the immunity legislation encompassed standalone psychiatric injury.

Defense Position

The appellate decision noted that Bahrain rejected the accusers' claims of infecting the activists' devices with spyware, but the initial court justice "found, on the basis of expert evidence, that the plaintiffs had discharged the burden upon them of demonstrating on the balance of probabilities that their computers were infected by spyware by Bahraini representatives."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a co-founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the legal proceedings, stating: "I am pleased with the progress to date of the legal proceedings regarding the hacking of my electronic device. It delivers a clear message to overseas authorities who target their peaceful political opponents with various means 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 arrived at the supreme judicial body in the country. I have a responsibility to expose what I experienced when I am convinced Bahrain compromised my device. The impact has been profound – especially for those who placed their trust in me, and for my friends and family."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be brought to justice for wrecking our lives. They cannot be permitted to use state protection to advance their transnational repression on British soil."

Both men have had their Bahraini citizenship withdrawn.

Attorney Commentary

A lead attorney stated: "These proceedings raise essential issues about accountability for the use of intrusive surveillance technology against political activists and human rights defenders. Our clients, and numerous additional people we advocate for, have anticipated a long time for clarity on these matters."