The Gulf nation to Present Case at UK Highest Court Over State Immunity in Spyware Allegations

Bahrain is preparing to claim before the Britain's highest judicial body that it possesses sovereign immunity from allegations that it installed surveillance software on the computers of two activists during their stay in London.

Court Proceedings Background

The Gulf country has previously lost its immunity argument in the lower court and appellate court. Bringing the case to the supreme court demonstrates the importance of this issue for the nation's international reputation.

Should Bahrain succeed, the ruling could have wider implications for how authoritarian states utilize surveillance technology to monitor and potentially harass opposition figures residing in the United Kingdom.

Key Focus of Supreme Court Hearing

The legal proceedings, scheduled to begin this Wednesday, will focus on whether the two individuals have the standing to seek compensation despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than addressing whether compensation is warranted.

Allegations and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahrain authorities used Germany-produced FinFisher spyware to infiltrate their electronic devices while they were residing in London, resulting in emotional distress. The appellate court last October supported a previous court decision that the 1978 immunity legislation does not provide Bahrain state protection against their claims.

Article 5 of the act states that a country does not have immunity 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 additional surveillance allegations being handled by law firms on behalf of affected individuals.

Software Capabilities

Attorneys claimed that "The surveillance program can gather large quantities of data from infected devices, including capturing every keystroke, telephone conversations, messages, emails, scheduling information, real-time chats, contacts lists, browsing history, images, data collections, files and videos. It enables capture of real-time sound from the equipment's audio input and camera."

Judicial Analysis

The court of appeal found that remote manipulation, from abroad, of a electronic device located in the UK constituted an action within the UK's jurisdiction. Although the hacking occurred abroad, the consequence was that the territorial sovereignty of the UK had suffered interference.

A foreign state does not have immunity for personal injury caused by an action in the UK, although certain activities occur abroad. The court also ruled that "personal injury" as defined in the state immunity act included independent psychological damage.

Bahrain's Stance

The appellate decision noted that Bahrain denied the claimants' allegations of compromising the dissidents' computers 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 preponderance of evidence that their computers were compromised by spyware by Bahraini representatives."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, welcomed with the supreme court hearing, saying: "I am pleased with the progress to date of the legal proceedings regarding the cyber intrusion of my computer. It sends a clear message to foreign governments who pursue their non-violent critics with multiple methods including intruding into their personal affairs and devices."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after facing frequent detention 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 experienced when I believe Bahrain hacked my computer. The effect has been profound – especially for those who placed their trust in me, and for my loved ones."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be held accountable for destroying our lives. They cannot be allowed to use diplomatic immunity to advance their transnational repression on British soil."

Both men have had their Bahraini citizenship revoked.

Legal Perspective

A lead attorney commented: "This case raise fundamental questions about responsibility for the deployment of invasive monitoring systems against political activists and human rights defenders. Our clients, and many others we represent, have anticipated a considerable period for resolution on these matters."