🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is preparing to claim before the Britain's highest judicial body that it possesses sovereign immunity from accusations that it installed surveillance software on the computers of two activists during their stay in London.

Legal Battle Background

Bahrain has previously lost its sovereign immunity claim in the lower court and court of appeal. Bringing the matter to the supreme court demonstrates the importance of this issue for the nation's global standing.

If Bahrain succeed, the decision could have broader consequences for how authoritarian states utilize digital spyware to track and possibly target political dissidents living in the United Kingdom.

Key Focus of Legal Proceedings

The supreme court hearing, starting this Wednesday, will focus on whether the two men have the standing to seek damages 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 German-made FinFisher surveillance software to compromise their electronic devices while they were residing in London, resulting in emotional distress. The appellate court last autumn upheld a high court ruling that the 1978 immunity legislation does not grant Bahrain state protection against their claims.

Article 5 of the legislation states that a state does not have protection from claims for physical or psychological harm caused by an action or inaction that took place in the UK.

The decision will also provide clarity regarding other surveillance allegations being handled by law firms on behalf of affected individuals.

Software Capabilities

Attorneys stated that "The surveillance program can collect large quantities of data from infected devices, including capturing every keystroke, telephone conversations, messages, electronic mail, calendar records, instant messaging, address books, internet activity, photos, databases, documents and videos. It enables capture of live audio from the equipment's audio input and visual recording device."

Legal Interpretation

The court of appeal determined that external control, overseas, of a electronic device located in the UK represented an act within the British territory. Even if the cyber intrusion took place overseas, the consequence was that the territorial sovereignty of the United Kingdom had suffered interference.

A foreign state does not have protection for personal injury caused by an act in the UK, although some activities occur overseas. The judicial body also determined that "personal injury" as defined in the immunity legislation encompassed independent psychological damage.

Defense Position

The appellate decision noted that Bahrain denied the claimants' allegations of compromising the activists' devices with surveillance software, but the high court judge "determined, on the basis of expert evidence, that the claimants had met the burden upon them of demonstrating on the balance of probabilities that their devices were infected by malicious software by Bahraini representatives."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the legal proceedings, saying: "I am pleased with the progress to date of the court case regarding the cyber intrusion of my computer. It sends a strong signal to overseas authorities who target their peaceful political opponents with various means including intruding into their private lives and devices."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing repeated arrests within the country, stated: "This process has now reached the supreme judicial body in the country. I have a responsibility to reveal what I endured when I believe Bahrain hacked my device. The impact has been profound – particularly for those who had confidence in me, and for my friends and family."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be brought to justice for wrecking our lives. They cannot be allowed to use diplomatic immunity to pursue their cross-border persecution on British soil."

Both men have had their Bahraini citizenship withdrawn.

Attorney Commentary

A lead attorney stated: "This case present fundamental questions about accountability for the use of invasive monitoring systems against civil society members and members of civil society. Our represented individuals, and numerous additional people we advocate for, have anticipated a long time for resolution on these issues."