🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is preparing to claim before the Britain's highest judicial body that it enjoys state immunity from allegations that it deployed spyware on the computers of two dissidents during their residence in London.

Legal Battle Background

Bahrain has previously lost its sovereign immunity claim in the high court and court of appeal. Bringing the case to the highest court demonstrates the importance of this issue for the nation's international reputation.

Should Bahrain prevail, the ruling could have wider consequences for how authoritarian governments employ surveillance technology to track and possibly target political dissidents residing in the UK.

Central Issue of Supreme Court Hearing

The legal proceedings, starting this Wednesday, will focus on whether the two men have the standing 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 Bahrain authorities used German-made FinFisher spyware to compromise their computers while they were living in London, resulting in psychological harm. The court of appeal last October supported a high court ruling that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not provide Bahrain state protection against their allegations.

Section 5 of the act specifies that a state does not have immunity from claims for personal injury resulting from an action or inaction that occurred in the United Kingdom.

The ruling will also provide clarity regarding other surveillance allegations being pursued by legal teams on behalf of affected individuals.

Technical Details

Legal representatives stated that "The surveillance program can gather large quantities of information from infected devices, including recording every keystroke, voice calls, text communications, electronic mail, calendar records, real-time chats, contacts lists, internet activity, images, databases, documents and videos. It enables recording of live audio from the equipment's audio input and camera."

Judicial Analysis

The court of appeal determined that remote manipulation, from abroad, of a computer located in the United Kingdom constituted an act within the UK's jurisdiction. Although the hacking took place overseas, the effect was that the national jurisdiction of the United Kingdom had been violated.

A foreign state does not have protection for personal injury resulting from an action in the United Kingdom, although certain activities occur overseas. The court also ruled that "psychological harm" as defined in the state immunity act encompassed independent psychological damage.

Defense Position

The appeal court ruling stated that Bahrain rejected the claimants' allegations of infecting the activists' devices with spyware, but the initial court justice "determined, on the basis of specialist testimony, that the claimants had discharged the burden upon them of demonstrating on the balance of probabilities that their computers were infected 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 court case regarding the cyber intrusion of my electronic device. It delivers a clear message to overseas authorities who pursue their peaceful political opponents with various means including intruding into their private lives and equipment."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after facing frequent detention within the nation, commented: "This process has now reached the highest court in the country. I have a duty to expose what I endured when I am convinced Bahrain hacked my device. 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 allowed to use state protection to advance their cross-border persecution on UK territory."

Both men have had their Bahraini citizenship withdrawn.

Legal Perspective

A senior legal representative stated: "These proceedings raise essential issues about responsibility for the deployment of intrusive surveillance technology against political activists and human rights defenders. Our clients, and numerous additional people we advocate for, have waited a long time for clarity on these issues."