🔗 Share this article The Gulf nation to Present Case at UK Highest Court Over Sovereign Immunity in Spyware Allegations Bahrain is set to claim before the UK's supreme court that it possesses sovereign immunity from accusations that it deployed surveillance software on the computers of two activists during their stay in London. Court Proceedings Background Bahrain has previously lost its immunity argument in both high court and court of appeal. Bringing the case to the highest court highlights the importance of this matter for the country's international reputation. Should Bahrain succeed, the ruling could have broader implications for how authoritarian states utilize surveillance technology to monitor and potentially harass political dissidents living in the UK. Central Issue of Supreme Court Hearing The supreme court hearing, starting this Wednesday, will focus on whether the two individuals have the legal right to seek compensation despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than determining whether damages are applicable. Claims and Proof Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahrain authorities used German-made FinFisher spyware to infiltrate their computers while they were living in London, resulting in emotional distress. The appellate court last autumn supported a previous court decision that the 1978 immunity legislation does not grant Bahrain sovereign immunity against their claims. Section 5 of the act specifies that a state does not have protection from legal actions for personal injury caused by an action or inaction that occurred in the United Kingdom. The ruling will also provide clarity regarding additional surveillance allegations being pursued by legal teams on behalf of affected individuals. Software Capabilities Attorneys stated that "The surveillance program can collect vast amounts of data from compromised equipment, including recording all keyboard inputs, telephone conversations, messages, emails, scheduling information, instant messaging, contacts lists, internet activity, images, data collections, files and videos. It enables capture of real-time sound from the equipment's audio input and visual recording device." Legal Interpretation The court of appeal determined that external control, overseas, of a electronic device situated in the United Kingdom represented an action within the UK's jurisdiction. Even if the cyber intrusion occurred abroad, the consequence was that the territorial sovereignty of the UK had been violated. A foreign state does not have immunity for personal injury caused by an act in the UK, although certain activities occur abroad. The judicial body also ruled that "psychological harm" as interpreted in the immunity legislation included independent psychological damage. Defense Position The appeal court ruling stated that Bahrain denied the claimants' allegations of compromising the dissidents' computers with surveillance software, but the initial court justice "determined, on the basis of specialist testimony, that the plaintiffs had discharged the burden upon them of proving on the balance of probabilities that their computers were compromised by malicious software by Bahrain's servants or agents." Plaintiffs' Statements Shehabi, a co-founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the supreme court hearing, saying: "I am pleased with the outcome so far of the court case regarding the cyber intrusion of my electronic device. It delivers a clear message to foreign governments who pursue their non-violent critics with various means including intruding into their personal affairs and equipment." Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing frequent detention within the country, commented: "This process has now arrived at the highest court in the land. I have a responsibility to reveal what I experienced when I am convinced Bahrain hacked my device. 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 held accountable for destroying our lives. They cannot be allowed to hide behind diplomatic immunity to pursue their transnational repression on UK territory." Both men have had their Bahraini citizenship withdrawn. Attorney Commentary A senior legal representative commented: "These proceedings raise essential issues about responsibility for the use of invasive monitoring systems against political activists and human rights defenders. Our represented individuals, and many others we represent, have waited a considerable period for resolution on these issues."