🔗 Share this article

The Bahraini government is preparing to claim before the Britain's highest judicial body that it possesses state immunity from allegations that it installed surveillance software on the computers of two activists during their residence in London.

Court Proceedings Background

Bahrain has been denied its immunity argument in the high court and court of appeal. Taking the case to the highest court highlights the importance of this issue for the country's global standing.

If Bahrain prevail, the ruling could have broader implications for how authoritarian states utilize surveillance technology to track and possibly target political dissidents living in the United Kingdom.

Key Focus of Legal Proceedings

The legal proceedings, starting this Wednesday, will focus on whether the two individuals have the legal right to claim damages despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than addressing whether compensation is warranted.

Allegations and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahraini government used Germany-produced FinFisher spyware to compromise their electronic devices while they were living in London, resulting in emotional distress. The court of appeal last October supported a previous court decision that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not grant Bahrain sovereign immunity against their allegations.

Section 5 of the act states that a country does not have immunity from claims for personal injury caused by an act or omission that took place in the United Kingdom.

The decision will also provide clarity regarding other spyware claims being handled by legal teams on behalf of clients.

Software Capabilities

Legal representatives stated that "The surveillance program can gather large quantities of data from compromised equipment, including capturing all keyboard inputs, voice calls, messages, emails, calendar records, instant messaging, address books, internet activity, photos, data collections, files and recordings. It enables capture of real-time sound from the device's microphone and visual recording device."

Legal Interpretation

The court of appeal found that remote manipulation, from abroad, of a computer situated in the UK constituted an act within the British territory. Although the cyber intrusion occurred abroad, the effect was that the territorial sovereignty of the United Kingdom had been violated.

A overseas nation does not have protection for personal injury caused by an act in the UK, although certain activities take place abroad. The judicial body also determined that "psychological harm" as interpreted in the immunity legislation encompassed standalone psychiatric injury.

Bahrain's Stance

The appellate decision noted that Bahrain rejected the claimants' allegations of compromising the activists' devices with surveillance software, but the initial court justice "found, on the based on expert evidence, that the claimants had met the responsibility upon them of demonstrating on the balance of probabilities that their devices were compromised by malicious software by Bahraini representatives."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a co-founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, welcomed with the legal proceedings, saying: "I'm satisfied with the outcome so far of the court case regarding the cyber intrusion of my electronic device. It sends a clear message to foreign governments who pursue their non-violent critics with various means including intruding into their private lives and equipment."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing 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 am convinced Bahrain compromised my computer. The impact has been devastating – particularly for those who had confidence in me, and for my loved ones."

"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 cross-border persecution on UK territory."

The two individuals have had their nationality revoked.

Attorney Commentary

A lead attorney stated: "This case present fundamental questions about accountability for the deployment of invasive monitoring systems against civil society members and human rights defenders. Our represented individuals, and numerous additional people we advocate for, have waited a long time for clarity on these matters."