🔗 Share this article Bahrain to Present Case at British Highest Court Over State Immunity in Spyware Allegations Bahrain is preparing to argue before the Britain's highest judicial body that it enjoys sovereign immunity from accusations that it deployed surveillance software on the devices of two activists during their stay in London. Court Proceedings Context Bahrain has previously lost its sovereign immunity claim in both lower court and court of appeal. Taking the case to the highest court demonstrates the significance of this issue for the country's global standing. If Bahrain succeed, the decision could have broader consequences for how authoritarian governments employ digital spyware to monitor and possibly target political dissidents living in the United Kingdom. Key Focus of Legal Proceedings The legal proceedings, scheduled to begin this midweek, will focus on whether the two men have the standing to claim damages despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than determining whether compensation is warranted. Allegations and Proof Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahrain authorities used Germany-produced FinFisher surveillance software to compromise their electronic devices while they were residing in London, causing emotional distress. The appellate court last October upheld a previous court decision that the 1978 immunity legislation does not grant Bahrain sovereign immunity against their claims. Section 5 of the act states that a country does not have protection from claims for personal injury resulting from an action or inaction that occurred in the United Kingdom. The decision will also offer guidance regarding additional spyware claims being handled by legal teams on behalf of clients. Technical Details Attorneys claimed that "The surveillance program can collect vast amounts of information from infected devices, including capturing all keyboard inputs, voice calls, text communications, electronic mail, calendar records, instant messaging, contacts lists, browsing history, photos, databases, files and videos. It enables capture of live audio from the equipment's audio input and camera." Legal Interpretation The court of appeal found 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 occurred abroad, the consequence was that the territorial sovereignty of the United Kingdom had been violated. A overseas nation does not have protection for personal injury caused by an act in the UK, even if some acts take place overseas. The judicial body also determined that "psychological harm" as interpreted in the immunity legislation encompassed standalone psychiatric injury. Defense Position The appeal court ruling noted 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 preponderance of evidence that their computers were compromised by spyware by Bahrain's servants or agents." Claimants' Comments Shehabi, a co-founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, welcomed with the legal proceedings, stating: "I'm satisfied with the progress to date of the legal proceedings regarding the hacking of my computer. It sends a clear message to overseas authorities who pursue their non-violent critics with multiple methods including intruding into their private lives and equipment." Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after facing frequent detention within the nation, stated: "This process has now reached the highest court in the land. I have a responsibility to reveal what I experienced when I believe Bahrain hacked my computer. The effect has been profound – particularly for those who had confidence 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 permitted to use diplomatic immunity to advance their cross-border persecution on British soil." The two individuals have had their nationality withdrawn. Attorney Commentary A lead attorney commented: "This case raise fundamental questions about responsibility for the deployment of intrusive surveillance technology against political activists and human rights defenders. Our clients, and many others we advocate for, have anticipated a long time for resolution on these issues."