🔗 Share this article

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

Court Proceedings Context

The Gulf country has previously lost its sovereign immunity claim in the lower court and appellate court. Taking the case to the highest court demonstrates the importance of this matter for the country's global standing.

If Bahrain succeed, the decision could have broader consequences for how authoritarian governments employ digital spyware to monitor and possibly target political dissidents residing in the UK.

Central Issue of Legal Proceedings

The legal proceedings, starting this midweek, will concentrate on whether the two men have the legal right to seek compensation despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than addressing whether compensation is warranted.

Claims and Proof

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, resulting in psychological harm. The appellate court last autumn upheld a high court ruling that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not grant Bahrain state protection against their claims.

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

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

Software Capabilities

Attorneys claimed that "FinSpy software can collect vast amounts of data from infected devices, including recording every keystroke, voice calls, text communications, emails, scheduling information, instant messaging, contacts lists, internet activity, photos, data collections, documents and recordings. It enables recording of live audio from the equipment's audio input and visual recording device."

Legal Interpretation

The appellate court determined that external control, from abroad, of a electronic device located in the United Kingdom constituted an act within the British territory. Even if the hacking occurred abroad, the consequence was that the territorial sovereignty of the UK had suffered interference.

A overseas nation does not have protection for personal injury caused by an act in the UK, although some activities occur overseas. The judicial body also ruled that "psychological harm" as defined in the state immunity act encompassed independent psychological damage.

Defense Position

The appellate decision stated that Bahrain rejected the accusers' claims of compromising the dissidents' computers with surveillance software, but the initial court justice "determined, on the basis of specialist testimony, that the plaintiffs had discharged the responsibility upon them of demonstrating 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, stating: "I'm satisfied with the outcome so far of the court case regarding the cyber intrusion of my computer. It sends a clear message to foreign governments who pursue their peaceful political opponents with multiple methods including violating their private lives and equipment."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after facing frequent detention within the country, stated: "Our journey has now reached the supreme judicial body in the country. I have a duty to expose what I experienced when I am convinced Bahrain hacked my computer. The effect has been devastating – especially for those who placed their trust in me, and for my loved ones."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be brought to justice for wrecking our lives. They cannot be allowed to hide behind state protection to pursue their transnational repression on UK territory."

Both men have had their Bahraini citizenship revoked.

Legal Perspective

A lead attorney stated: "These proceedings raise essential issues about accountability for the deployment of invasive monitoring systems against civil society members and human rights defenders. Our clients, and many others we represent, have anticipated a long time for clarity on these matters."