🔗 Share this article

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

Legal Battle Background

The Gulf country has been denied its immunity argument in both lower court and appellate court. Taking the matter to the highest court demonstrates the significance of this issue for the country's international reputation.

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

Central Issue of Legal Proceedings

The supreme court hearing, scheduled to begin this midweek, will concentrate on whether the two men have the legal right to seek damages despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than addressing whether damages are applicable.

Claims and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahrain authorities used Germany-produced FinFisher surveillance software to infiltrate their computers while they were residing in London, resulting in psychological harm. The appellate court last autumn upheld a high court ruling that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not provide Bahrain sovereign immunity against their allegations.

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

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

Technical Details

Legal representatives stated that "The surveillance program can collect vast amounts of information from infected devices, including capturing all keyboard inputs, telephone conversations, text communications, electronic mail, calendar records, instant messaging, address books, internet activity, photos, databases, files and recordings. It allows recording of live audio from the equipment's audio input and camera."

Judicial Analysis

The appellate court found that remote manipulation, overseas, of a electronic device located in the United Kingdom represented an act within the UK's jurisdiction. Although the cyber intrusion took place overseas, the consequence was that the territorial sovereignty of the United Kingdom had been violated.

A foreign state does not have protection for psychological harm caused by an act in the United Kingdom, even if some activities occur overseas. The judicial body also ruled that "psychological harm" as interpreted in the immunity legislation encompassed standalone psychiatric injury.

Bahrain's Stance

The appellate decision stated that Bahrain denied the accusers' claims of compromising the activists' devices with surveillance software, but the initial court justice "determined, on the based on expert evidence, that the claimants had met the responsibility upon them of proving on the balance of probabilities that their devices were infected by malicious software by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the legal proceedings, saying: "I am pleased with the progress to date of the court case regarding the cyber intrusion of my computer. It delivers a clear message to foreign governments who target their non-violent critics with multiple methods including intruding into their private lives and devices."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after facing repeated arrests within the nation, commented: "Our journey has now reached the highest court in the country. I have a duty to reveal what I experienced when I believe Bahrain compromised my computer. The impact has been profound – particularly for those who had confidence in me, and for my loved ones."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be held accountable for wrecking our lives. They cannot be permitted to hide behind diplomatic immunity to pursue their cross-border persecution on UK territory."

The two individuals have had their nationality revoked.

Legal Perspective

A lead attorney commented: "This case raise essential issues about responsibility for the deployment of invasive monitoring systems against political activists and human rights defenders. Our clients, and numerous additional people we advocate for, have anticipated a long time for resolution on these issues."