🔗 Share this article

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

Legal Battle Context

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

If Bahrain succeed, the ruling could have wider consequences for how authoritarian states utilize surveillance technology to track and possibly target political dissidents residing in the United Kingdom.

Key Focus of Legal Proceedings

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

Claims and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahraini government used Germany-produced FinFisher spyware to compromise their electronic devices while they were residing in London, resulting in psychological harm. The appellate court last autumn upheld a previous court decision that the 1978 immunity legislation does not grant Bahrain state protection against their claims.

Article 5 of the act specifies that a state does not have protection from legal actions for personal injury caused by an action or inaction that occurred in the United Kingdom.

The decision will also offer guidance regarding other surveillance allegations being pursued by legal teams on behalf of clients.

Technical Details

Attorneys claimed that "The surveillance program can gather vast amounts of information from compromised equipment, including capturing every keystroke, telephone conversations, messages, emails, scheduling information, real-time chats, contacts lists, browsing history, photos, data collections, files and videos. It enables capture of live audio from the device's microphone and camera."

Legal Interpretation

The appellate court determined that external control, overseas, of a electronic device located in the United Kingdom represented an act within the British territory. Although the cyber intrusion occurred abroad, the consequence was that the territorial sovereignty of the UK had suffered interference.

A overseas nation does not have protection for personal injury caused by an act in the United Kingdom, even if certain activities take place abroad. The judicial body also determined that "personal injury" as defined in the state immunity act encompassed independent psychological damage.

Defense Position

The appeal court ruling stated that Bahrain rejected the claimants' allegations of infecting the dissidents' computers with surveillance software, but the initial court justice "found, on the based on expert evidence, that the claimants had discharged the responsibility upon them of demonstrating on the preponderance of evidence that their computers were compromised by spyware by Bahraini representatives."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, welcomed with the legal proceedings, saying: "I'm satisfied with the outcome so far of the legal proceedings regarding the cyber intrusion of my electronic device. It sends a clear message to overseas authorities who pursue their peaceful political opponents with various means including violating their private lives and equipment."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after facing frequent detention within the nation, commented: "Our journey has now arrived at the highest court in the country. I have a duty to reveal what I endured when I am convinced Bahrain compromised my device. The effect has been profound – especially for those who had confidence in me, and for my friends and family."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be brought to justice for destroying our lives. They cannot be permitted to hide behind state protection to advance their transnational repression on British soil."

Both men have had their nationality withdrawn.

Attorney Commentary

A lead attorney stated: "This case present essential issues about responsibility for the deployment of intrusive surveillance technology against political activists and members of civil society. Our clients, and numerous additional people we represent, have waited a long time for resolution on these matters."