🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is preparing to argue before the UK's supreme court that it enjoys state immunity from accusations that it installed surveillance software on the computers of two activists during their stay in the UK capital.

Court Proceedings Context

Bahrain has been denied its sovereign immunity claim in the lower court and court of appeal. Bringing the matter to the supreme court highlights the importance of this matter for the nation's international reputation.

If Bahrain succeed, the ruling 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 Supreme Court Hearing

The supreme court hearing, scheduled to begin this Wednesday, will concentrate on whether the two men have the standing to claim compensation despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than addressing whether compensation is warranted.

Claims and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahrain authorities used German-made FinFisher spyware to compromise their electronic devices while they were residing in London, causing emotional distress. The appellate court last autumn upheld 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 act or omission that occurred in the United Kingdom.

The ruling will also offer guidance regarding additional spyware claims being pursued by legal teams on behalf of clients.

Software Capabilities

Attorneys stated that "FinSpy software can collect vast amounts of data from infected devices, including capturing all keyboard inputs, voice calls, messages, emails, calendar records, instant messaging, contacts lists, internet activity, photos, data collections, documents and videos. It allows recording of real-time sound from the equipment's audio input and visual recording device."

Legal Interpretation

The appellate court determined that remote manipulation, from abroad, of a computer situated in the United Kingdom represented an act within the British territory. Although the hacking took place overseas, the consequence was that the national jurisdiction of the UK had suffered interference.

A overseas nation does not have protection for psychological harm caused by an action in the United Kingdom, although some acts take place abroad. The court also determined that "psychological harm" as defined in the state immunity act included independent psychological damage.

Defense Position

The appellate decision noted that Bahrain rejected the claimants' allegations of infecting the dissidents' computers with surveillance software, but the high court judge "found, on the based on expert evidence, that the plaintiffs had met the responsibility upon them of proving on the preponderance of evidence that their computers were compromised by spyware by Bahraini representatives."

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 outcome so far of the court case regarding the cyber intrusion of my computer. It delivers a strong signal to foreign governments who pursue their peaceful political opponents with multiple methods including intruding into their personal affairs and equipment."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after facing frequent detention within the country, commented: "Our journey has now reached the supreme judicial body in the country. I have a duty to expose what I experienced when I believe Bahrain compromised my computer. The impact has been devastating – 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 permitted to use state protection to advance their transnational repression on UK territory."

The two individuals have had their Bahraini citizenship revoked.

Attorney Commentary

A senior legal representative stated: "These proceedings raise essential issues about responsibility for the use of invasive monitoring systems against civil society members and human rights defenders. Our clients, and numerous additional people we represent, have waited a considerable period for clarity on these issues."