🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is preparing to argue before the UK's supreme court that it possesses sovereign immunity from allegations that it installed surveillance software on the devices of two dissidents during their residence in the UK capital.

Court Proceedings Context

Bahrain has been denied its immunity argument in both lower court and court of appeal. Taking the case to the highest court highlights the significance of this matter for the country's global standing.

Should Bahrain prevail, the decision could have broader implications for how authoritarian states utilize digital spyware to track and potentially harass opposition figures residing in the United Kingdom.

Key Focus of Supreme Court Hearing

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

Claims and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahrain authorities used German-made FinFisher spyware to compromise their electronic devices while they were living in London, resulting in psychological harm. The court of appeal last autumn supported a high court ruling that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not grant Bahrain sovereign immunity against their allegations.

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

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

Technical Details

Attorneys stated that "The surveillance program can collect large quantities of information from infected devices, including capturing all keyboard inputs, voice calls, messages, electronic mail, scheduling information, real-time chats, address books, internet activity, images, data collections, documents and recordings. It enables recording of real-time sound from the device's microphone and camera."

Judicial Analysis

The appellate court determined that external control, overseas, of a electronic device situated in the UK represented an act within the UK's jurisdiction. Even if the hacking took place overseas, the effect was that the territorial sovereignty of the United Kingdom had been violated.

A overseas nation does not have protection for personal injury resulting from an act in the United Kingdom, although some activities take place abroad. The judicial body also ruled that "psychological harm" as interpreted in the immunity legislation encompassed independent psychological damage.

Bahrain's Stance

The appeal court ruling noted that Bahrain rejected the accusers' claims of infecting the activists' devices with surveillance software, but the initial court justice "found, on the based on specialist testimony, that the claimants had met the burden upon them of proving on the balance of probabilities that their computers were infected by spyware by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the legal proceedings, saying: "I am pleased with the outcome so far of the legal proceedings regarding the hacking of my electronic device. It delivers a clear message to overseas authorities who target their peaceful political opponents with various means including intruding into their personal affairs and equipment."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after facing repeated arrests within the nation, stated: "Our journey has now reached the supreme judicial body in the land. I have a duty to reveal what I endured when I am convinced Bahrain compromised my computer. 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 held accountable for wrecking our lives. They cannot be allowed to hide behind diplomatic immunity to pursue their cross-border persecution on UK territory."

Both men have had their nationality revoked.

Attorney Commentary

A senior legal representative commented: "This case raise essential issues about responsibility for the use of invasive monitoring systems against political activists and members of civil society. Our represented individuals, and numerous additional people we represent, have anticipated a long time for resolution on these issues."