🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is set to argue before the Britain's highest judicial body that it possesses sovereign immunity from allegations that it deployed spyware on the computers of two dissidents during their residence in the UK capital.

Court Proceedings Context

Bahrain has been denied its sovereign immunity claim in the lower court and appellate court. Taking the case to the supreme court highlights the importance of this matter for the nation's international reputation.

If Bahrain prevail, the decision could have wider implications for how authoritarian states utilize digital spyware to monitor and possibly target political dissidents living in the United Kingdom.

Key Focus of Legal Proceedings

The legal proceedings, scheduled to begin this midweek, will concentrate on whether the two men 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 claim the Bahrain authorities used German-made FinFisher surveillance software to infiltrate their electronic devices while they were living in London, resulting in emotional distress. The appellate court last October upheld a previous court decision that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not grant Bahrain sovereign immunity against their claims.

Section 5 of the act specifies that a country does not have immunity from claims for personal injury caused by an action or inaction that occurred in the UK.

The ruling will also offer guidance regarding other spyware claims being handled by legal teams on behalf of affected individuals.

Technical Details

Legal representatives claimed that "FinSpy software can gather vast amounts of information from infected devices, including capturing every keystroke, telephone conversations, messages, emails, scheduling information, instant messaging, address books, browsing history, photos, databases, documents and recordings. It allows recording of real-time sound from the equipment's audio input and camera."

Legal Interpretation

The appellate court determined that external control, from abroad, of a computer situated in the UK constituted an act within the UK's jurisdiction. Even if the cyber intrusion occurred abroad, the effect was that the territorial sovereignty of the United Kingdom had been violated.

A overseas nation does not have protection for psychological harm caused by an act in the UK, although some activities occur abroad. The court also ruled that "psychological harm" as interpreted in the immunity legislation included standalone psychiatric injury.

Defense Position

The appellate decision stated that Bahrain denied the accusers' claims of compromising the dissidents' computers with spyware, but the initial court justice "found, on the basis of specialist testimony, that the plaintiffs had met the burden upon them of demonstrating on the balance of probabilities that their computers were infected by spyware by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a co-founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, welcomed 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 sends a clear message to foreign governments who pursue their non-violent critics with various means including violating their private lives and equipment."

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 land. I have a responsibility to expose what I endured when I am convinced Bahrain hacked my computer. The effect has been profound – especially for those who placed their trust in me, and for my loved ones."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be held accountable for wrecking our lives. They cannot be permitted to use diplomatic immunity to advance their transnational repression on UK territory."

Both men have had their nationality withdrawn.

Attorney Commentary

A senior legal representative commented: "This case raise essential issues about accountability for the use of invasive monitoring systems against civil society members and human rights defenders. Our clients, and numerous additional people we represent, have anticipated a long time for resolution on these matters."