Bahrain is preparing to argue before the Britain's highest judicial body that it enjoys sovereign immunity from accusations that it installed spyware on the devices of two dissidents during their stay in the UK capital.
Court Proceedings Background
Bahrain has been denied its immunity argument in the lower court and appellate court. Taking the matter to the highest court demonstrates the importance of this issue for the nation's international reputation.
Should Bahrain prevail, the ruling could have broader consequences for how authoritarian states utilize digital spyware to monitor and potentially harass opposition figures residing in the UK.
Central Issue of Legal Proceedings
The supreme court hearing, starting this midweek, will concentrate on whether the two men have the legal right 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 claim the Bahraini government used German-made FinFisher spyware to infiltrate their electronic devices while they were living in London, causing psychological harm. The court of appeal last October upheld a previous court decision that the 1978 immunity legislation does not grant Bahrain sovereign immunity against their allegations.
Article 5 of the act states that a state does not have immunity from legal actions for personal injury resulting from an act or omission that occurred in the UK.
The ruling will also provide clarity regarding additional surveillance allegations being pursued by law firms on behalf of clients.
Technical Details
Legal representatives stated that "FinSpy software can collect vast amounts of data from compromised equipment, including recording every keystroke, voice calls, messages, emails, scheduling information, real-time chats, contacts lists, browsing history, images, databases, files and recordings. It allows capture of real-time sound from the equipment's audio input and visual recording device."
Judicial Analysis
The court of appeal found that remote manipulation, from abroad, of a computer situated in the UK represented an act within the UK's jurisdiction. Even if the cyber intrusion took place overseas, the effect was that the territorial sovereignty of the United Kingdom had been violated.
A overseas nation does not have immunity for personal injury resulting from an action in the UK, although certain activities take place abroad. The court also ruled that "personal injury" as interpreted in the state immunity act encompassed independent psychological damage.
Defense Position
The appellate decision stated that Bahrain denied the accusers' claims 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 burden upon them of demonstrating on the balance of probabilities that their computers were compromised by malicious software by Bahraini representatives."
Plaintiffs' Statements
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 court case regarding the cyber intrusion of my electronic device. It delivers a strong signal to overseas authorities who target their peaceful political opponents with multiple methods including intruding into their personal affairs and devices."
Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after facing frequent detention within the nation, commented: "This process has now arrived at the highest court in the country. I have a duty to reveal what I endured when I believe Bahrain compromised my computer. The effect has been devastating – especially for those who had confidence in me, and for my loved ones."
"Repressive governments like Bahrain must be held accountable for destroying our lives. They cannot be allowed to hide behind diplomatic immunity to pursue their cross-border persecution on UK territory."
The two individuals have had their nationality withdrawn.
Legal Perspective
A senior legal representative commented: "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 represent, have anticipated a considerable period for clarity on these matters."
