🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is set to claim before the Britain's highest judicial body that it enjoys state immunity from allegations that it installed surveillance software on the devices of two activists during their stay in London.

Legal Battle Background

Bahrain has been denied its sovereign immunity claim in the high court and court of appeal. Bringing the matter to the highest court demonstrates the importance of this issue for the nation's global standing.

If Bahrain prevail, the decision could have broader consequences for how authoritarian states employ surveillance technology to monitor and potentially harass political dissidents residing in the United Kingdom.

Key Focus of Supreme Court Hearing

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

Claims and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahrain authorities used German-made FinFisher surveillance software to infiltrate their computers while they were residing in London, resulting in psychological harm. The appellate court last autumn supported a previous court decision that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not provide Bahrain sovereign immunity against their allegations.

Article 5 of the legislation states that a country does not have protection from claims for personal injury caused by an action or inaction that took place in the United Kingdom.

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

Technical Details

Attorneys claimed that "FinSpy software can gather vast amounts of information from compromised equipment, including recording all keyboard inputs, telephone conversations, text communications, emails, calendar records, instant messaging, contacts lists, browsing history, photos, data collections, documents and videos. It enables recording of live audio from the equipment's audio input and visual recording device."

Judicial Analysis

The appellate court found that remote manipulation, overseas, of a computer situated in the UK constituted an act within the UK's jurisdiction. Although the cyber intrusion took place overseas, the effect was that the national jurisdiction of the UK had suffered interference.

A foreign state does not have immunity for psychological harm resulting from an action in the UK, although certain acts take place abroad. The court also determined that "personal injury" as interpreted in the state immunity act encompassed standalone psychiatric injury.

Defense Position

The appellate decision stated that Bahrain rejected the accusers' claims of compromising the activists' devices with surveillance software, but the initial court justice "determined, on the based on specialist testimony, that the claimants had discharged the responsibility upon them of demonstrating on the preponderance of evidence that their devices were infected by malicious software by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a co-founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the supreme court hearing, stating: "I'm satisfied with the outcome so far of the court case regarding the cyber intrusion of my electronic device. It sends a clear message to overseas authorities who target their non-violent critics with various means including violating their personal affairs and devices."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after facing repeated arrests within the nation, stated: "This process has now reached 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 – particularly for those who placed their trust in me, and for my friends and family."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be held accountable for wrecking our lives. They cannot be allowed to hide behind diplomatic immunity to pursue their cross-border persecution on UK territory."

The two individuals have had their Bahraini citizenship withdrawn.

Legal Perspective

A senior legal representative stated: "This case raise essential issues about accountability for the deployment of intrusive surveillance technology against political activists and human rights defenders. Our represented individuals, and numerous additional people we advocate for, have waited a considerable period for clarity on these matters."