🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is set to claim before the UK's supreme court that it enjoys sovereign immunity from accusations that it deployed surveillance software on the computers of two activists during their residence in London.

Court Proceedings Background

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

If Bahrain prevail, the decision could have broader consequences for how authoritarian governments employ digital spyware to track and potentially harass political dissidents residing in the UK.

Central Issue of Legal Proceedings

The legal proceedings, scheduled to begin this Wednesday, will concentrate on whether the two individuals have the legal right to claim compensation despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than addressing whether damages are applicable.

Claims and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahraini government used Germany-produced FinFisher spyware to infiltrate their electronic devices while they were living in London, resulting in emotional distress. The court of appeal last October supported a previous court decision that the 1978 immunity legislation does not grant Bahrain sovereign immunity against their claims.

Article 5 of the act specifies that a country does not have protection from legal actions for physical or psychological harm resulting from an act or omission that took place in the United Kingdom.

The decision will also offer guidance regarding other surveillance allegations being pursued by law firms on behalf of clients.

Software Capabilities

Legal representatives stated that "FinSpy software can collect large quantities of data from compromised equipment, including recording every keystroke, voice calls, messages, electronic mail, scheduling information, real-time chats, address books, browsing history, images, data collections, files and recordings. It enables capture of real-time sound from the equipment's audio input and camera."

Judicial Analysis

The court of appeal found that external control, from abroad, of a computer located in the United Kingdom represented an act within the British territory. Although the cyber intrusion occurred abroad, the consequence was that the territorial sovereignty of the UK had suffered interference.

A overseas nation does not have protection for psychological harm resulting from an act in the United Kingdom, although some acts take place overseas. The judicial body also ruled that "psychological harm" 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 dissidents' computers with surveillance software, but the high court judge "determined, on the basis of expert evidence, that the plaintiffs had met the burden upon them of demonstrating on the balance of probabilities that their devices were compromised by spyware by Bahraini representatives."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, welcomed with the supreme court hearing, saying: "I'm satisfied with the outcome so far of the legal proceedings regarding the cyber intrusion of my electronic device. It delivers a strong signal to foreign governments who pursue their non-violent critics with various means including intruding into their private lives and equipment."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after facing frequent detention within the nation, stated: "This process has now reached the supreme judicial body in the land. I have a responsibility to expose what I endured when I believe Bahrain hacked my computer. The effect has been devastating – particularly for those who placed their trust in me, and for my loved ones."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be brought to justice for destroying 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 revoked.

Attorney Commentary

A lead attorney commented: "These proceedings present essential issues about accountability for the deployment of invasive monitoring systems against political activists and human rights defenders. Our represented individuals, and many others we advocate for, have waited a long time for resolution on these issues."