🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is set to argue before the Britain's highest judicial body that it possesses state immunity from accusations that it installed surveillance software on the computers of two dissidents during their stay in London.

Court Proceedings Context

Bahrain has been denied its sovereign immunity claim in both lower court and court of appeal. Bringing the matter to the supreme court highlights the significance of this matter for the country's global standing.

If Bahrain succeed, the ruling could have wider consequences for how authoritarian governments employ digital spyware to track and possibly target political dissidents residing in the United Kingdom.

Central Issue of Supreme Court Hearing

The supreme court hearing, starting this Wednesday, will focus on whether the two individuals have the standing to claim damages despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than determining whether damages are applicable.

Claims and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahraini government used German-made FinFisher surveillance software to infiltrate their electronic devices while they were residing in London, resulting in psychological harm. The court of appeal last autumn supported a high court ruling that the 1978 immunity legislation does not provide Bahrain state protection against their allegations.

Article 5 of the legislation specifies that a country does not have immunity from claims for physical or psychological harm resulting from an act or omission that took place in the UK.

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

Software Capabilities

Attorneys claimed that "FinSpy software can collect large quantities of information from infected devices, including capturing every keystroke, voice calls, text communications, electronic mail, calendar records, instant messaging, contacts lists, browsing history, photos, databases, files and videos. It enables capture of live audio from the equipment's audio input and camera."

Legal Interpretation

The court of appeal found that external control, from abroad, of a electronic device located in the United Kingdom constituted an action within the UK's jurisdiction. Even if the hacking took place overseas, the consequence was that the national jurisdiction of the UK had suffered interference.

A foreign state does not have immunity for psychological harm caused by an act in the UK, although certain acts occur abroad. The judicial body also ruled that "psychological harm" as interpreted in the immunity legislation included standalone psychiatric injury.

Defense Position

The appeal court ruling noted that Bahrain denied the claimants' allegations of infecting 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 computers were compromised by malicious software by Bahraini representatives."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, welcomed with the supreme court hearing, stating: "I'm satisfied with the outcome so far of the legal proceedings regarding the hacking of my electronic device. It sends a clear message to foreign governments 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 repeated arrests within the country, stated: "This process has now reached the supreme judicial body in the country. I have a responsibility to expose what I experienced when I believe Bahrain compromised my device. The effect has been profound – especially for those who had confidence in me, and for my loved ones."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be brought to justice for destroying our lives. They cannot be allowed to use diplomatic immunity to pursue their transnational repression on UK territory."

The two individuals have had their nationality revoked.

Attorney Commentary

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