🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is set to argue before the Britain's highest judicial body that it enjoys state immunity from accusations that it installed surveillance software on the computers of two activists during their residence in the UK capital.

Court Proceedings Background

Bahrain has previously lost its sovereign immunity claim in the high court and appellate court. Taking the case to the highest court demonstrates the significance of this issue for the country's international reputation.

Should Bahrain prevail, the ruling could have broader implications for how authoritarian governments utilize digital spyware to track and possibly target opposition figures living in the United Kingdom.

Key Focus of Supreme Court Hearing

The supreme court hearing, starting this midweek, will concentrate on whether the two individuals 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 Bahraini government used Germany-produced FinFisher surveillance software to compromise their electronic devices while they were residing in London, causing emotional distress. The appellate court last autumn supported a previous court decision that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not provide Bahrain state protection against their allegations.

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

The ruling will also provide clarity regarding other surveillance allegations being pursued by legal teams on behalf of affected individuals.

Software Capabilities

Attorneys stated that "The surveillance program can collect vast amounts of information from compromised equipment, including capturing every keystroke, voice calls, text communications, emails, scheduling information, real-time chats, contacts lists, browsing history, images, data collections, files and videos. It enables capture of real-time sound from the equipment's audio input and camera."

Legal Interpretation

The court of appeal found that external control, overseas, of a computer situated in the United Kingdom represented an action within the British territory. Even if the hacking took place overseas, the consequence was that the territorial sovereignty of the UK had suffered interference.

A foreign state does not have immunity for psychological harm resulting from an act in the UK, although certain acts take place abroad. The court also determined that "personal injury" as interpreted in the state immunity act 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 high court judge "determined, on the basis of specialist testimony, that the plaintiffs had met the burden upon them of proving on the preponderance of evidence that their devices were compromised by spyware by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, welcomed with the supreme court hearing, stating: "I'm satisfied with the outcome so far of the court case regarding the hacking of my electronic device. It sends a clear message to foreign governments who target their peaceful political opponents with various means including intruding into their private lives and devices."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing repeated arrests within the nation, stated: "Our journey has now reached the supreme judicial body in the country. I have a responsibility to expose what I endured when I am convinced Bahrain hacked my device. The impact has been profound – especially for those who had confidence in me, and for my loved ones."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be brought to justice for wrecking our lives. They cannot be allowed to use state protection to advance their cross-border persecution on British soil."

Both men have had their Bahraini citizenship revoked.

Attorney Commentary

A senior legal representative stated: "This case present fundamental questions about accountability for the deployment of invasive monitoring systems against political activists and members of civil society. Our represented individuals, and many others we represent, have anticipated a long time for resolution on these matters."