🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is set to argue before the Britain's highest judicial body that it possesses sovereign immunity from allegations that it installed surveillance software on the computers of two dissidents during their residence in the UK capital.

Legal Battle Background

The Gulf country has previously lost its immunity argument in both high court and appellate court. Taking the matter to the supreme court demonstrates the importance of this issue for the country's international reputation.

If Bahrain prevail, the ruling could have wider implications for how authoritarian states employ surveillance technology to monitor and possibly target opposition figures residing in the UK.

Central Issue of Legal Proceedings

The legal proceedings, scheduled to begin this midweek, will concentrate on whether the two individuals have the legal right to claim compensation despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than addressing whether damages are applicable.

Claims and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahraini government used Germany-produced FinFisher surveillance software to compromise their electronic devices while they were residing in London, causing psychological harm. The court of appeal last October upheld a high court ruling that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not grant Bahrain state protection against their claims.

Article 5 of the legislation specifies that a country does not have immunity from legal actions for physical or psychological harm resulting from an action or inaction that took place in the United Kingdom.

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

Technical Details

Legal representatives claimed that "FinSpy software can gather vast amounts of information from compromised equipment, including capturing every keystroke, telephone conversations, messages, electronic mail, scheduling information, instant messaging, contacts lists, browsing history, images, data collections, files and recordings. It enables recording of live audio from the equipment's audio input and visual recording device."

Judicial Analysis

The appellate court determined that remote manipulation, from abroad, of a electronic device located in the United Kingdom constituted an action within the UK's jurisdiction. Although the cyber intrusion occurred abroad, the effect was that the territorial sovereignty of the UK had been violated.

A foreign state does not have protection for psychological harm resulting from an action in the United Kingdom, although some acts occur overseas. The court also determined that "personal injury" as defined in the immunity legislation encompassed standalone psychiatric injury.

Bahrain's Stance

The appeal court ruling noted that Bahrain denied the accusers' claims of infecting the dissidents' computers with spyware, but the initial court justice "determined, on the basis of specialist testimony, that the plaintiffs had discharged the burden upon them of proving on the preponderance of evidence that their computers were infected by malicious software by Bahraini representatives."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, welcomed with the legal proceedings, saying: "I am pleased with the outcome so far of the court case regarding the cyber intrusion of my electronic device. It sends a clear message to overseas authorities who pursue their non-violent critics with multiple methods including violating their personal affairs and equipment."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after facing frequent detention within the country, commented: "This process has now reached the supreme judicial body in the country. I have a responsibility to reveal what I endured when I believe Bahrain compromised my computer. The effect has been devastating – especially for those who placed their trust in me, and for my friends and family."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be held accountable for destroying our lives. They cannot be permitted to use state protection to advance their cross-border persecution on UK territory."

Both men have had their nationality revoked.

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 many others we advocate for, have waited a considerable period for clarity on these issues."