🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is preparing to argue before the UK's supreme court that it possesses sovereign immunity from allegations that it installed surveillance software on the devices of two dissidents during their residence in London.

Court Proceedings Context

Bahrain has been denied its immunity argument in both lower court and appellate court. Taking the matter to the highest court highlights the importance of this matter for the country's global standing.

If Bahrain prevail, the ruling could have wider implications for how authoritarian states employ digital spyware to track and possibly target opposition figures residing in the United Kingdom.

Key Focus of Legal Proceedings

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

Allegations and Proof

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahrain authorities used German-made FinFisher surveillance software to compromise their computers while they were living in London, causing emotional distress. The appellate court last October supported a previous court decision that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not provide Bahrain state protection against their allegations.

Section 5 of the legislation states that a country does not have protection from claims for personal injury caused by an action or inaction that occurred in the UK.

The ruling will also provide clarity regarding additional surveillance allegations being pursued by legal teams on behalf of clients.

Technical Details

Legal representatives claimed that "The surveillance program can gather vast amounts of data from compromised equipment, including capturing all keyboard inputs, telephone conversations, messages, electronic mail, scheduling information, instant messaging, address books, browsing history, photos, databases, files and videos. It enables recording of real-time sound from the equipment's audio input and camera."

Judicial Analysis

The appellate court found that external control, from abroad, of a electronic device located in the United Kingdom represented an action within the British territory. Even if the cyber intrusion took place overseas, the consequence was that the national jurisdiction of the United Kingdom had been violated.

A foreign state does not have protection for psychological harm resulting from an action in the United Kingdom, although certain activities occur overseas. The judicial body also determined that "personal injury" as defined in the immunity legislation encompassed standalone psychiatric injury.

Bahrain's Stance

The appeal court ruling stated that Bahrain rejected the claimants' allegations of infecting the dissidents' computers with surveillance software, but the high court judge "determined, on the basis of specialist testimony, that the plaintiffs had discharged the burden upon them of demonstrating on the balance of probabilities that their devices were compromised by malicious software by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Plaintiffs' Statements

Shehabi, a founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the supreme court hearing, stating: "I'm satisfied with the outcome so far of the legal proceedings regarding the cyber intrusion of my computer. It delivers a clear message to foreign governments who target their non-violent critics with multiple methods including intruding into their private lives and equipment."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing repeated arrests within the country, commented: "Our journey has now arrived at the supreme judicial body in the land. I have a duty to reveal what I endured when I believe Bahrain compromised my computer. The impact has been devastating – especially for those who placed their trust in me, and for my friends and family."

"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 cross-border persecution on UK territory."

The two individuals have had their Bahraini citizenship withdrawn.

Legal Perspective

A senior legal representative stated: "This case present essential issues about accountability for the deployment of intrusive surveillance technology against civil society members and human rights defenders. Our clients, and many others we advocate for, have anticipated a long time for clarity on these issues."