🔗 Share this article Bahrain to Present Case at British Highest Court Over Sovereign Immunity in Spyware Allegations The Bahraini government is set to claim before the Britain's highest judicial body that it enjoys sovereign immunity from allegations that it deployed spyware on the devices of two activists during their stay in London. Legal Battle Background Bahrain has previously lost its immunity argument in the lower court and court of appeal. Bringing the matter to the highest court demonstrates the significance of this issue for the nation's international reputation. If Bahrain succeed, the ruling could have wider consequences for how authoritarian states utilize surveillance technology to monitor and potentially harass political dissidents residing in the UK. Key Focus of Legal Proceedings The supreme court hearing, starting this Wednesday, will concentrate on whether the two individuals have the legal right to seek compensation despite Bahrain's immunity claim, 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 compromise their electronic devices while they were living in London, causing psychological harm. The appellate court last October supported a previous court decision that the 1978 immunity legislation does not grant Bahrain state protection against their allegations. Section 5 of the act states that a country does not have immunity from legal actions for personal injury caused by an action or inaction that occurred in the United Kingdom. The ruling will also offer guidance regarding other surveillance allegations being pursued by legal teams on behalf of affected individuals. Software Capabilities Attorneys stated that "FinSpy software can gather vast amounts of data from compromised equipment, including recording all keyboard inputs, telephone conversations, messages, emails, calendar records, instant messaging, contacts lists, internet activity, photos, databases, documents and videos. It allows capture of live audio from the equipment's audio input and camera." Legal Interpretation The appellate court determined that external control, from abroad, of a computer 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 foreign state does not have immunity for psychological harm caused by an act in the United Kingdom, although some activities take place overseas. The judicial body also determined that "psychological harm" as defined in the state immunity act included independent psychological damage. Defense Position The appeal court ruling stated that Bahrain rejected the claimants' allegations of infecting the dissidents' computers with surveillance software, but the initial court justice "determined, on the basis of expert evidence, that the plaintiffs had discharged the burden upon them of demonstrating on the balance of probabilities that their devices were compromised by spyware by Bahraini representatives." Plaintiffs' Statements Shehabi, a founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, welcomed with the supreme court hearing, stating: "I'm satisfied with the outcome so far of the legal proceedings regarding the cyber intrusion of my electronic device. It delivers a clear message to foreign governments 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 country, commented: "This process has now arrived at the supreme judicial body in the country. I have a duty to expose what I endured when I am convinced Bahrain hacked my device. The effect has been devastating – particularly for those who had confidence in me, and for my loved ones." "Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be held accountable for wrecking our lives. They cannot be permitted to hide behind state protection to advance their cross-border persecution on British soil." The two individuals have had their nationality withdrawn. Legal Perspective A senior legal representative stated: "These proceedings raise fundamental questions about responsibility for the use of invasive monitoring systems against civil society members and human rights defenders. Our clients, and numerous additional people we represent, have anticipated a considerable period for resolution on these matters."