🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is preparing to argue before the Britain's highest judicial body that it enjoys sovereign immunity from accusations that it installed spyware on the computers of two dissidents during their residence in London.

Legal Battle Background

Bahrain has been denied its immunity argument in both lower court and appellate court. Taking the case to the highest court highlights the importance of this issue for the country's international reputation.

If Bahrain succeed, the ruling could have wider implications for how authoritarian states utilize digital spyware to track and potentially harass political dissidents living in the United Kingdom.

Key Focus of Legal Proceedings

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

Claims and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahraini government used Germany-produced FinFisher surveillance software to infiltrate their computers while they were residing 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 allegations.

Section 5 of the act specifies that a state does not have protection from claims for physical or psychological harm resulting from an action or inaction that took place in the United Kingdom.

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

Technical Details

Legal representatives claimed that "FinSpy software can gather large quantities of information from compromised equipment, including recording every keystroke, telephone conversations, text communications, electronic mail, calendar records, real-time chats, address books, internet activity, photos, databases, documents and recordings. It allows capture of live audio from the device's microphone and camera."

Judicial Analysis

The appellate court determined that external control, from abroad, of a computer situated in the UK represented an action within the British territory. Although the hacking took place overseas, the consequence was that the national jurisdiction of the UK had suffered interference.

A overseas nation does not have immunity for psychological harm resulting from an action in the United Kingdom, although some activities take place overseas. The judicial body also ruled that "psychological harm" as interpreted in the immunity legislation encompassed independent psychological damage.

Defense Position

The appeal court ruling stated that Bahrain rejected the accusers' claims of compromising the dissidents' computers with surveillance software, but the initial court justice "found, on the basis of expert evidence, that the plaintiffs had met the responsibility upon them of demonstrating on the balance of probabilities that their computers were infected by malicious software by Bahraini representatives."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a co-founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the supreme court hearing, stating: "I'm satisfied with the outcome so far of the legal proceedings regarding the hacking of my computer. It sends a strong signal to foreign governments who pursue their non-violent critics with various means including violating their personal affairs and equipment."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after facing repeated arrests within the nation, commented: "This process has now arrived at the supreme judicial body in the land. I have a duty to expose what I endured when I am convinced Bahrain compromised my device. The effect 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 hide behind diplomatic immunity to advance their transnational repression on British soil."

Both men have had their Bahraini citizenship revoked.

Legal Perspective

A senior legal representative stated: "This case raise essential issues about accountability for the deployment of invasive monitoring systems against political activists and human rights defenders. Our represented individuals, and numerous additional people we advocate for, have anticipated a long time for clarity on these matters."