🔗 Share this article

Bahrain is set to claim before the Britain's highest judicial body that it enjoys state immunity from accusations that it installed spyware on the computers of two activists during their stay in London.

Legal Battle Context

Bahrain has been denied its immunity argument in both high court and court of appeal. Taking the matter to the supreme court highlights the significance of this matter for the country's international reputation.

If Bahrain succeed, the decision could have broader consequences for how authoritarian governments utilize surveillance technology to track and potentially harass opposition figures living in the UK.

Central Issue of Supreme Court Hearing

The supreme court hearing, scheduled to begin this Wednesday, will concentrate on whether the two men have the standing to claim damages despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than determining whether damages are applicable.

Allegations and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahrain authorities used Germany-produced FinFisher spyware to compromise their computers while they were residing in London, causing psychological harm. The appellate court last autumn upheld a high court ruling that the 1978 immunity legislation does not grant Bahrain sovereign immunity against their allegations.

Article 5 of the legislation specifies that a country does not have protection from claims for personal injury caused by an action or inaction that occurred in the United Kingdom.

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

Software Capabilities

Attorneys stated that "FinSpy software can collect vast amounts of information from infected devices, including recording every keystroke, voice calls, text communications, electronic mail, calendar records, instant messaging, contacts lists, internet activity, images, data collections, files and videos. It enables recording of live audio from the equipment's audio input and visual recording device."

Legal Interpretation

The appellate court determined that remote manipulation, from abroad, of a computer situated in the UK constituted an action within the British territory. Although the cyber intrusion took place overseas, the consequence was that the national jurisdiction of the United Kingdom had suffered interference.

A overseas nation does not have protection for personal injury resulting from an action in the United Kingdom, even if some acts take place overseas. The judicial body also determined that "personal injury" as defined in the immunity legislation encompassed independent psychological damage.

Bahrain's Stance

The appellate decision stated that Bahrain rejected the accusers' claims of infecting the activists' devices with spyware, but the high court judge "determined, on the basis of specialist testimony, that the plaintiffs had discharged the responsibility upon them of demonstrating on the balance of probabilities that their devices were infected by spyware by Bahraini representatives."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a co-founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, welcomed with the legal proceedings, saying: "I am pleased with the progress to date of the legal proceedings regarding the cyber intrusion of my computer. It sends a strong signal to overseas authorities who target their peaceful political opponents with multiple methods including violating their personal affairs and devices."

Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing repeated arrests within the nation, commented: "Our journey has now reached the supreme judicial body in the country. I have a duty to reveal what I experienced when I am convinced Bahrain hacked my computer. The effect has been devastating – especially for those who had confidence in me, and for my friends and family."

"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be brought to justice for destroying our lives. They cannot be permitted to hide behind diplomatic immunity to pursue their transnational repression on British soil."

The two individuals have had their Bahraini citizenship revoked.

Legal Perspective

A senior legal representative commented: "This case present essential issues about accountability for the deployment of intrusive surveillance technology against political activists and human rights defenders. Our clients, and many others we represent, have waited a long time for resolution on these issues."