🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is preparing to claim before the Britain's highest judicial body that it possesses state immunity from accusations that it deployed surveillance software on the computers of two dissidents during their stay in the UK capital.

Court Proceedings Context

Bahrain has been denied its sovereign immunity claim in the lower court and court of appeal. Bringing the matter to the highest court highlights the importance of this matter for the nation's international reputation.

If Bahrain prevail, the decision could have wider implications for how authoritarian states employ surveillance technology to monitor and possibly target political dissidents living in the UK.

Central Issue of Legal Proceedings

The legal proceedings, scheduled to begin this Wednesday, will focus on whether the two men have the legal right to claim damages despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than determining whether compensation is warranted.

Claims and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahrain authorities used German-made FinFisher spyware to compromise their electronic devices while they were residing in London, causing psychological harm. The court of appeal last autumn supported a high court ruling that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not provide Bahrain state protection against their claims.

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

The ruling will also provide clarity regarding other surveillance allegations being pursued by legal teams on behalf of affected individuals.

Software Capabilities

Attorneys claimed that "The surveillance program can gather vast amounts of information from compromised equipment, including capturing every keystroke, voice calls, text communications, electronic mail, scheduling information, real-time chats, address books, internet activity, images, data collections, files and recordings. It enables recording of live audio from the equipment's audio input and visual recording device."

Legal Interpretation

The court of appeal found that remote manipulation, overseas, of a computer situated in the UK constituted an action within the British territory. Even if the cyber intrusion took place overseas, the consequence was that the national jurisdiction of the UK had been violated.

A foreign state does not have protection for personal injury caused by an act in the UK, even if some activities occur overseas. The court also determined that "psychological harm" as defined in the immunity legislation encompassed standalone psychiatric injury.

Bahrain's Stance

The appellate decision noted that Bahrain denied the claimants' allegations of compromising the activists' devices with spyware, but the high court judge "found, on the basis of specialist testimony, that the plaintiffs had met the responsibility upon them of demonstrating on the preponderance of evidence that their devices were compromised by malicious software by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a co-founder of the opposition group 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 strong signal to overseas authorities who target their non-violent critics with various means including intruding into their private lives and equipment."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing repeated arrests within the country, stated: "This process has now reached the supreme judicial body in the land. I have a duty to expose what I experienced when I believe Bahrain compromised my computer. The impact has been devastating – especially for those who placed their trust in me, and for my loved ones."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be held accountable for wrecking our lives. They cannot be permitted to use state protection to advance their cross-border persecution on British soil."

Both men have had their nationality withdrawn.

Attorney Commentary

A senior legal representative stated: "This case raise essential issues about responsibility for the use of invasive monitoring systems against civil society members and members of civil society. Our clients, and many others we represent, have anticipated a considerable period for resolution on these issues."