🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is preparing to argue before the Britain's highest judicial body that it enjoys state immunity from accusations that it deployed 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 both lower court and appellate court. Bringing the case to the highest court highlights the significance of this issue for the nation's global standing.

Should Bahrain succeed, the decision could have broader implications for how authoritarian states employ surveillance technology to monitor and possibly target opposition figures living in the UK.

Central Issue of Supreme Court Hearing

The supreme court hearing, scheduled to begin this midweek, will focus on whether the two individuals have the standing to seek compensation despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than determining whether compensation is warranted.

Allegations and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahraini government used Germany-produced FinFisher surveillance software to compromise their computers while they were living in London, causing emotional distress. The appellate court last October supported a high court ruling that the 1978 immunity legislation does not grant Bahrain state protection against their claims.

Article 5 of the legislation specifies that a country does not have immunity from claims for physical or psychological harm caused by an act or omission that occurred in the UK.

The decision will also provide clarity regarding additional spyware claims being handled by law firms on behalf of clients.

Technical Details

Attorneys claimed that "FinSpy software can gather vast amounts of information from compromised equipment, including recording all keyboard inputs, voice calls, text communications, electronic mail, calendar records, instant messaging, address books, internet activity, images, data collections, documents and recordings. It allows recording of real-time sound from the equipment's audio input and visual recording device."

Legal Interpretation

The appellate court determined that remote manipulation, from abroad, of a computer located in the United Kingdom constituted an act within the British territory. Even if the hacking occurred abroad, the consequence was that the territorial sovereignty of the United Kingdom had suffered interference.

A overseas nation does not have protection for personal injury caused by an act in the United Kingdom, even if some acts occur overseas. The court also determined that "personal injury" as interpreted in the state immunity act encompassed standalone psychiatric injury.

Defense Position

The appellate decision stated that Bahrain rejected the accusers' claims of infecting the activists' devices with spyware, but the initial court justice "found, on the based on specialist testimony, that the plaintiffs had met the responsibility upon them of proving on the preponderance of evidence that their devices were infected by malicious software by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a co-founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, welcomed with the supreme court hearing, stating: "I am pleased with the progress to date of the court case regarding the hacking of my electronic device. It sends a strong signal to foreign governments who pursue their peaceful political opponents with multiple methods including intruding into their private lives and devices."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing frequent detention within the country, commented: "Our journey has now arrived at the supreme judicial body in the land. I have a duty to reveal what I experienced when I believe Bahrain hacked my device. The effect has been profound – 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 permitted to use state protection to advance their transnational repression on British soil."

Both men have had their nationality withdrawn.

Attorney Commentary

A senior legal representative stated: "This case present fundamental questions about accountability for the deployment of invasive monitoring systems against civil society members and human rights defenders. Our represented individuals, and numerous additional people we advocate for, have waited a considerable period for clarity on these issues."