🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is preparing to claim before the Britain's highest judicial body that it enjoys state immunity from accusations that it installed surveillance software on the computers of two dissidents during their stay in the UK capital.

Court Proceedings Context

The Gulf country has been denied its sovereign immunity claim in both high court and appellate court. Bringing the case to the highest court highlights the importance of this matter for the country's international reputation.

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

Key Focus of Legal Proceedings

The legal proceedings, scheduled to begin this Wednesday, will focus on whether the two men have the standing to seek compensation despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than determining whether damages are applicable.

Allegations and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahraini government used German-made FinFisher spyware to infiltrate their computers while they were living in London, causing emotional distress. The court of appeal last autumn supported a high court ruling that the 1978 immunity legislation does not grant Bahrain sovereign immunity against their claims.

Section 5 of the act specifies that a state does not have immunity from claims for personal injury resulting from an action or inaction that occurred in the UK.

The ruling will also provide clarity regarding additional surveillance allegations being handled by legal teams on behalf of clients.

Software Capabilities

Attorneys stated that "The surveillance program can collect vast amounts of data from infected devices, including capturing every keystroke, telephone conversations, messages, emails, scheduling information, real-time chats, contacts lists, internet activity, images, data collections, documents and videos. It enables capture of live audio from the device's microphone and camera."

Judicial Analysis

The court of appeal determined that remote manipulation, overseas, of a computer located in the United Kingdom constituted an action within the UK's jurisdiction. Although the cyber intrusion took place overseas, the effect was that the national jurisdiction of the United Kingdom had suffered interference.

A overseas nation does not have protection for personal injury resulting from an action in the UK, although certain activities take place overseas. The court also determined that "psychological harm" as defined in the state immunity act included independent psychological damage.

Bahrain's Stance

The appeal court ruling stated that Bahrain denied the claimants' allegations of infecting the dissidents' computers with spyware, but the high court judge "determined, on the based on specialist testimony, that the plaintiffs had discharged the responsibility upon them of proving on the balance of probabilities that their devices were compromised by malicious software by Bahraini representatives."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a co-founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, welcomed with the legal proceedings, saying: "I am pleased with the outcome so far of the legal proceedings regarding the hacking of my computer. It sends a clear message to foreign governments who target their non-violent critics with various means including intruding into their personal affairs and devices."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after facing repeated arrests within the nation, commented: "This process has now arrived at the highest court in the land. I have a responsibility to expose what I experienced when I am convinced Bahrain compromised my device. The impact has been profound – particularly for those who had confidence in me, and for my loved ones."

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

The two individuals have had their nationality withdrawn.

Attorney Commentary

A senior legal representative stated: "These proceedings raise fundamental questions about responsibility for the use of intrusive surveillance technology against civil society members and human rights defenders. Our represented individuals, and numerous additional people we represent, have anticipated a long time for clarity on these matters."