🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is preparing to claim before the UK's supreme court that it possesses state immunity from accusations that it deployed surveillance software on the devices of two dissidents during their residence in the UK capital.

Court Proceedings Background

The Gulf country has previously lost its immunity argument in the lower court and appellate court. Bringing the case to the supreme court demonstrates the importance of this matter for the nation's global standing.

Should Bahrain prevail, the decision could have broader consequences for how authoritarian governments employ surveillance technology to monitor and possibly target opposition figures residing in the United Kingdom.

Central Issue of Legal Proceedings

The legal proceedings, scheduled to begin this Wednesday, will concentrate on whether the two men have the standing to claim compensation despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than addressing whether damages are applicable.

Allegations and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahrain authorities used German-made FinFisher surveillance software to infiltrate their electronic devices while they were living in London, causing psychological harm. The appellate court last October upheld a high court ruling that the 1978 immunity legislation does not provide Bahrain state protection against their claims.

Article 5 of the act specifies that a state does not have protection from claims for physical or psychological harm caused by an action or inaction that occurred in the United Kingdom.

The ruling will also offer guidance regarding additional surveillance allegations being handled by law firms on behalf of affected individuals.

Technical Details

Legal representatives stated that "The surveillance program can gather vast amounts of information from compromised equipment, including capturing every keystroke, telephone conversations, messages, electronic mail, scheduling information, real-time chats, contacts lists, internet activity, photos, data collections, files and recordings. It allows capture of real-time sound from the equipment's audio input and visual recording device."

Legal Interpretation

The court of appeal determined that remote manipulation, from abroad, of a computer situated in the United Kingdom constituted an action within the British territory. Even if the cyber intrusion occurred abroad, the effect was that the national jurisdiction of the United Kingdom had suffered interference.

A foreign state does not have immunity for personal injury caused by an act in the United Kingdom, even if certain acts take place overseas. The court also ruled that "psychological harm" as defined in the state immunity act included independent psychological damage.

Bahrain's Stance

The appeal court ruling noted that Bahrain rejected the accusers' claims of compromising the dissidents' computers with surveillance software, but the high court judge "determined, on the based on specialist testimony, that the plaintiffs had met the responsibility upon them of demonstrating on the preponderance of evidence that their devices were compromised by spyware by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a co-founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, welcomed with the supreme court hearing, stating: "I'm satisfied with the progress to date of the court case regarding the hacking of my computer. It sends a clear message to foreign governments who target their peaceful political opponents with multiple methods including violating their private lives and devices."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after facing repeated arrests within the nation, commented: "Our journey has now reached the supreme judicial body in the land. I have a duty to reveal what I endured when I am convinced Bahrain hacked 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 brought to justice for destroying our lives. They cannot be permitted to use state protection to advance their transnational repression on UK territory."

The two individuals have had their nationality withdrawn.

Attorney Commentary

A lead attorney stated: "This case present fundamental questions about responsibility for the deployment of invasive monitoring systems against political activists and members of civil society. Our clients, and numerous additional people we advocate for, have waited a considerable period for resolution on these matters."