🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is set to claim before the Britain's highest judicial body that it enjoys sovereign immunity from accusations that it installed surveillance software on the computers of two activists during their residence in the UK capital.

Court Proceedings Background

The Gulf country has previously lost its immunity argument in the lower court and appellate court. Taking the matter to the highest court highlights the significance of this issue for the country's global standing.

Should Bahrain succeed, the decision could have broader implications for how authoritarian states employ surveillance technology to monitor 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 individuals have the standing to seek damages despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than addressing whether compensation is warranted.

Allegations and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahrain authorities used German-made FinFisher surveillance software to compromise their computers while they were residing in London, resulting in psychological harm. The court of appeal last October upheld a high court ruling that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not grant Bahrain sovereign immunity against their claims.

Article 5 of the act specifies that a country does not have protection from legal actions for personal injury resulting from an action or inaction that took place in the UK.

The decision will also offer guidance regarding other surveillance allegations being handled by legal teams on behalf of clients.

Technical Details

Legal representatives stated that "FinSpy software can collect vast amounts of information from compromised equipment, including capturing all keyboard inputs, telephone conversations, messages, electronic mail, scheduling information, real-time chats, address books, browsing history, images, data collections, files and recordings. It enables recording of real-time sound from the equipment's audio input and visual recording device."

Legal Interpretation

The appellate court determined that external control, overseas, of a computer situated in the UK constituted an action within the UK's jurisdiction. Although the hacking occurred abroad, the consequence was that the territorial sovereignty of the United Kingdom had suffered interference.

A overseas nation does not have immunity for psychological harm caused by an act in the UK, although certain activities occur overseas. The court also ruled that "personal injury" as interpreted in the state immunity act encompassed standalone psychiatric injury.

Bahrain's Stance

The appellate decision noted that Bahrain denied the claimants' allegations of compromising the dissidents' computers with spyware, but the high court judge "found, on the based on expert evidence, that the plaintiffs had discharged the burden upon them of demonstrating on the balance of probabilities that their computers were compromised by spyware by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the supreme court hearing, stating: "I am pleased with the outcome so far of the court case regarding the hacking of my computer. It sends a clear message to foreign governments who target their non-violent critics with various means including violating their private lives and devices."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after facing repeated arrests within the nation, commented: "Our journey has now reached the supreme judicial body in the country. I have a responsibility to expose what I endured when I am convinced Bahrain hacked my computer. The impact has been devastating – particularly for those who placed their trust in me, and for my loved ones."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be brought to justice for wrecking our lives. They cannot be allowed to hide behind diplomatic immunity to advance their cross-border persecution on British soil."

The two individuals have had their Bahraini citizenship withdrawn.

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 represented individuals, and numerous additional people we represent, have waited a considerable period for clarity on these matters."