🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is preparing to claim before the Britain's highest judicial body that it possesses state immunity from accusations that it installed spyware on the computers of two activists during their stay in the UK capital.

Court Proceedings Background

Bahrain has previously lost its sovereign immunity claim in both lower court and court of appeal. Bringing the case to the highest court highlights the importance of this issue for the nation's global standing.

If Bahrain succeed, the ruling could have broader implications for how authoritarian states utilize digital spyware to track and possibly target opposition figures living in the UK.

Central Issue of Supreme Court Hearing

The supreme court hearing, starting this Wednesday, will focus on whether the two men have the legal right to seek compensation despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than determining whether damages are applicable.

Claims and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahrain authorities used German-made FinFisher spyware to compromise their computers while they were residing in London, resulting in psychological harm. The appellate court last October supported a high court ruling that the 1978 immunity legislation does not grant Bahrain sovereign immunity against their claims.

Article 5 of the legislation specifies that a state does not have immunity from legal actions for physical or psychological harm caused by an action or inaction that took place in the UK.

The ruling will also offer guidance regarding other spyware claims being handled by law firms on behalf of clients.

Software Capabilities

Attorneys stated that "The surveillance program can collect large quantities of information from infected devices, including capturing every keystroke, voice calls, text communications, electronic mail, scheduling information, real-time chats, contacts lists, browsing history, images, data collections, files and recordings. It allows recording of live audio from the device's microphone and visual recording device."

Legal Interpretation

The court of appeal found that remote manipulation, from abroad, of a computer situated in the United Kingdom represented an action within the British territory. Although the cyber intrusion took place overseas, the effect was that the national jurisdiction of the UK had been violated.

A foreign state does not have protection for personal injury resulting from an action in the UK, although some acts take place abroad. The judicial body also ruled that "personal injury" as defined in the immunity legislation included independent psychological damage.

Defense Position

The appeal court ruling noted that Bahrain rejected the claimants' allegations of compromising the activists' devices with spyware, but the initial court justice "determined, on the basis of expert evidence, that the plaintiffs had discharged the burden upon them of proving on the preponderance of evidence that their computers were infected by spyware by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, welcomed with the supreme court hearing, saying: "I'm satisfied with the outcome so far of the court case regarding the hacking of my electronic device. It delivers a strong signal to overseas authorities 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, stated: "Our journey has now arrived at the highest court in the country. I have a duty to reveal what I experienced when I believe Bahrain hacked my device. The impact has been devastating – especially 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 allowed to hide behind diplomatic immunity to pursue their transnational repression on British soil."

Both men have had their nationality withdrawn.

Legal Perspective

A senior legal representative stated: "This case present essential issues about accountability for the deployment of invasive monitoring systems against civil society members and members of civil society. Our clients, and numerous additional people we advocate for, have anticipated a long time for clarity on these matters."