🔗 Share this article The Gulf nation to Argue at UK Highest Court Over State 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 surveillance software on the computers of two dissidents during their residence in London. Court Proceedings Background The Gulf country has previously lost its sovereign immunity claim in the lower court and court of appeal. Bringing the matter to the highest court highlights the importance of this matter for the country's international reputation. Should Bahrain succeed, the ruling could have wider consequences for how authoritarian states employ surveillance technology to track and potentially harass political dissidents residing in the UK. Key Focus of Legal Proceedings The supreme court hearing, scheduled to begin this midweek, will concentrate on whether the two individuals have the standing to claim damages despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than addressing whether compensation is warranted. Allegations and Evidence Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahrain authorities used Germany-produced FinFisher surveillance software to compromise their computers while they were living in London, causing emotional distress. The appellate court last autumn upheld a high court ruling that the 1978 immunity legislation does not grant Bahrain state protection against their claims. Article 5 of the legislation states that a country does not have immunity from legal actions for personal injury resulting from an action or inaction that took place in the UK. The decision will also offer guidance regarding additional surveillance allegations being handled by legal teams on behalf of affected individuals. Software Capabilities Attorneys claimed that "FinSpy software can gather vast amounts of information from infected devices, including capturing every keystroke, voice calls, messages, emails, scheduling information, instant messaging, address books, browsing history, images, databases, files and recordings. It enables capture of real-time sound from the equipment's audio input and visual recording device." Judicial Analysis The court of appeal determined that remote manipulation, overseas, of a electronic device located in the UK constituted an action within the British territory. Although the hacking occurred abroad, the consequence was that the territorial sovereignty of the United Kingdom had been violated. A foreign state does not have immunity for personal injury caused by an act in the UK, although some activities take place overseas. The judicial body also ruled that "personal injury" as interpreted in the state immunity act included standalone psychiatric injury. Defense Position The appellate decision noted that Bahrain rejected the claimants' allegations of compromising the activists' devices with surveillance software, but the high court judge "found, on the basis of specialist testimony, that the plaintiffs had met the burden upon them of proving on the balance of probabilities that their computers were infected by malicious software by Bahrain's servants or agents." Plaintiffs' Statements Shehabi, a co-founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, welcomed with the supreme court hearing, saying: "I'm satisfied with the progress to date of the legal proceedings regarding the cyber intrusion of my electronic device. It sends a strong signal to overseas authorities who pursue their non-violent critics with multiple methods including intruding into their private lives and equipment." Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after facing frequent detention within the country, stated: "Our journey has now arrived at the supreme judicial body in the land. I have a responsibility to expose what I experienced when I am convinced Bahrain hacked my device. The effect has been devastating – especially for those who placed their trust 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." Both men have had their Bahraini citizenship revoked. Attorney Commentary A lead attorney commented: "This case raise essential issues about responsibility for the deployment of intrusive surveillance technology against civil society members and human rights defenders. Our represented individuals, and numerous additional people we represent, have anticipated a long time for resolution on these issues."