The Gulf nation to Argue at British Highest Court Over Sovereign Immunity in Surveillance Claims

The Bahraini government is set to argue before the Britain's highest judicial body that it possesses state immunity from accusations that it installed spyware on the computers of two dissidents during their stay in London.

Court Proceedings Background

Bahrain has been denied its sovereign immunity claim in both high court and appellate court. Taking the matter to the supreme court demonstrates the significance of this issue for the country's international reputation.

If Bahrain prevail, the decision could have wider implications for how authoritarian governments utilize digital spyware to track and possibly target opposition figures living in the UK.

Central Issue of Legal Proceedings

The supreme court hearing, scheduled to begin this Wednesday, will focus on whether the two individuals have the standing to seek compensation despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than addressing whether damages are applicable.

Allegations and Evidence

Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahraini government used German-made FinFisher spyware to infiltrate their electronic devices while they were living in London, causing psychological harm. The appellate court last autumn upheld a high court ruling that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not grant Bahrain sovereign immunity against their claims.

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

The decision will also offer guidance regarding other spyware claims being handled by legal teams on behalf of affected individuals.

Technical Details

Legal representatives stated that "The surveillance program can collect vast amounts of data from compromised equipment, including capturing all keyboard inputs, telephone conversations, text communications, electronic mail, calendar records, real-time chats, contacts lists, browsing history, images, databases, files and recordings. It enables capture of real-time sound from the device's microphone and camera."

Legal Interpretation

The appellate court determined that remote manipulation, from abroad, of a electronic device situated in the UK represented an action within the UK's jurisdiction. Although the cyber intrusion took place overseas, the consequence was that the national jurisdiction of the UK had suffered interference.

A foreign state does not have protection for personal injury resulting from an action in the UK, even if certain activities occur overseas. The court also ruled that "personal injury" as interpreted in the immunity legislation included independent psychological damage.

Defense Position

The appellate decision noted that Bahrain rejected the accusers' claims of infecting the activists' devices with surveillance software, but the initial court justice "determined, on the basis of expert evidence, that the plaintiffs had discharged the responsibility upon them of proving on the balance of probabilities that their devices were infected by malicious software by Bahrain's servants or agents."

Claimants' Comments

Shehabi, a founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the legal proceedings, saying: "I'm satisfied with the progress to date of the legal proceedings regarding the cyber intrusion of my computer. It delivers a strong signal to foreign governments who target their non-violent critics with multiple methods including intruding into their personal affairs and equipment."

Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing 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 hacked my device. The impact has been profound – particularly for those who placed their trust in me, and for my loved ones."

"Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be brought to justice for wrecking our lives. They cannot be permitted to use diplomatic immunity to pursue their cross-border persecution on British soil."

The two individuals have had their nationality revoked.

Legal Perspective

A senior legal representative stated: "These proceedings raise essential issues about responsibility for the deployment of invasive monitoring systems against political activists and human rights defenders. Our represented individuals, and many others we advocate for, have waited a considerable period for resolution on these issues."