🔗 Share this article

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

Legal Battle Background

The Gulf country has been denied its immunity argument in both lower court and court of appeal. Taking the case to the supreme court highlights the importance of this issue for the country's global standing.

Should Bahrain prevail, the ruling could have broader consequences for how authoritarian governments employ digital spyware to track and potentially harass political dissidents 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 men have the legal right to claim damages despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than addressing whether compensation is warranted.

Claims and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahraini government used German-made FinFisher surveillance software to compromise their computers while they were living in London, resulting in psychological harm. The court of appeal last October supported a previous court decision that the 1978 immunity legislation does not grant Bahrain sovereign immunity against their claims.

Article 5 of the act states that a state does not have protection from legal actions for personal injury resulting from an action or inaction that took place in the UK.

The ruling will also provide clarity regarding additional spyware claims being pursued by legal teams on behalf of affected individuals.

Software Capabilities

Attorneys stated that "FinSpy software can collect vast amounts of data from compromised equipment, including recording every keystroke, telephone conversations, text communications, electronic mail, calendar records, real-time chats, address books, browsing history, images, data collections, files and recordings. It allows recording of live audio from the equipment's audio input and camera."

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 British territory. Although the hacking took place overseas, the effect was that the territorial sovereignty of the UK had been violated.

A foreign state does not have protection for personal injury resulting from an action in the United Kingdom, although some activities take place abroad. The judicial body also ruled that "personal injury" as interpreted in the immunity legislation encompassed independent psychological damage.

Defense Position

The appellate decision stated that Bahrain denied the accusers' claims of compromising the dissidents' computers with spyware, but the initial court justice "found, on the based on specialist testimony, that the claimants had discharged the responsibility upon them of proving on the preponderance of evidence that their computers were compromised by malicious software by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the legal proceedings, saying: "I'm satisfied with the progress to date of the court case regarding the cyber intrusion of my computer. It delivers a clear message to overseas authorities who pursue their non-violent critics with various means including intruding into their personal affairs 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 land. I have a duty to reveal what I experienced when I believe Bahrain compromised my computer. The effect has been devastating – especially for those who had confidence in me, and for my friends and family."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be brought to justice for destroying our lives. They cannot be permitted to hide behind state protection to advance their cross-border persecution on British soil."

The two individuals have had their nationality revoked.

Attorney Commentary

A senior legal representative stated: "These proceedings raise fundamental questions about responsibility for the deployment of invasive monitoring systems against civil society members and human rights defenders. Our represented individuals, and many others we represent, have anticipated a long time for resolution on these issues."