🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is preparing to argue before the Britain's highest judicial body that it enjoys sovereign immunity from accusations that it installed spyware on the devices of two activists during their residence in the UK capital.

Court Proceedings Context

The Gulf country has previously lost its sovereign immunity claim in both high court and court of appeal. Taking the case to the supreme court demonstrates the importance of this matter for the country's global standing.

If Bahrain succeed, the decision could have broader implications for how authoritarian states utilize surveillance technology to track and potentially harass opposition figures living in the United Kingdom.

Central Issue of Legal Proceedings

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

Allegations and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahrain authorities used German-made FinFisher spyware to infiltrate their computers while they were residing in London, resulting in psychological harm. The court of appeal last October upheld a previous court decision that the 1978 immunity legislation does not provide Bahrain sovereign immunity against their allegations.

Article 5 of the act states that a state does not have immunity from claims for physical or psychological harm caused by an action or inaction that occurred in the United Kingdom.

The decision will also provide clarity regarding other spyware claims being pursued by law firms on behalf of clients.

Software Capabilities

Legal representatives stated that "FinSpy software can collect vast amounts of data from compromised equipment, including recording every keystroke, telephone conversations, text communications, emails, calendar records, instant messaging, address books, internet activity, images, databases, documents and recordings. It allows capture of live audio from the device's microphone and visual recording device."

Judicial Analysis

The appellate court determined that external control, from abroad, of a computer situated in the United Kingdom represented an action within the British territory. Even if the cyber intrusion took place overseas, the consequence was that the national jurisdiction of the United Kingdom had suffered interference.

A foreign state does not have protection for personal injury resulting from an act in the United Kingdom, although certain acts take place abroad. The judicial body also determined that "psychological harm" as interpreted in the state immunity act included independent psychological damage.

Bahrain's Stance

The appellate decision noted that Bahrain denied the accusers' claims of compromising the dissidents' computers with surveillance software, but the initial court justice "determined, on the basis of expert evidence, that the plaintiffs had met the responsibility upon them of proving on the balance of probabilities that their devices were infected by malicious software by Bahraini representatives."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a co-founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the legal proceedings, stating: "I'm satisfied with the progress to date of the legal proceedings regarding the cyber intrusion of my electronic device. It delivers a strong signal to overseas authorities who pursue their non-violent critics with multiple methods including intruding into their private lives and equipment."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing frequent detention within the country, commented: "This process has now arrived at the highest court in the country. I have a responsibility to reveal what I experienced when I believe Bahrain compromised my computer. 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 brought to justice for destroying our lives. They cannot be permitted to hide behind state protection to pursue their transnational repression on UK territory."

The two individuals have had their nationality withdrawn.

Legal Perspective

A senior legal representative stated: "This case present fundamental questions about accountability for the deployment of invasive monitoring systems against political activists and human rights defenders. Our clients, and many others we represent, have waited a long time for resolution on these matters."