🔗 Share this article Bahrain to Present Case at British Highest Court Over Sovereign Immunity in Surveillance Allegations The Bahraini government is set to claim before the UK's supreme court that it enjoys state immunity from allegations that it deployed surveillance software on the devices of two dissidents during their stay in the UK capital. Legal Battle Background Bahrain has been denied its sovereign immunity claim in the lower court and court of appeal. Taking the case to the supreme court demonstrates the importance of this matter for the nation's international reputation. Should Bahrain succeed, the decision could have broader consequences for how authoritarian governments utilize digital spyware to track and possibly target opposition figures residing in the UK. Central Issue of Legal Proceedings The supreme court hearing, starting this midweek, will focus on whether the two men have the standing to claim compensation despite Bahrain's sovereign immunity argument, rather than determining whether damages are applicable. Allegations and Proof Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahraini government used Germany-produced FinFisher spyware to compromise their electronic devices while they were living in London, causing psychological harm. The court of appeal last autumn upheld a previous court decision that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not provide Bahrain state protection against their claims. Article 5 of the legislation states that a country does not have protection from legal actions for physical or psychological harm resulting from an act or omission that occurred in the UK. The decision will also provide clarity regarding additional surveillance allegations being handled by law firms on behalf of clients. Technical Details Legal representatives claimed that "The surveillance program can collect vast amounts of data from compromised equipment, including capturing all keyboard inputs, telephone conversations, text communications, emails, scheduling information, instant messaging, address books, internet activity, photos, data collections, documents and recordings. It allows recording of live audio from the device's microphone and camera." Legal Interpretation The appellate court determined that remote manipulation, from abroad, of a computer situated in the United Kingdom represented an action within the UK's jurisdiction. Even if 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 psychological harm caused by an action in the United Kingdom, although some activities take place overseas. The court also ruled that "psychological harm" as interpreted in the state immunity act included standalone psychiatric injury. Bahrain's Stance The appeal court ruling stated that Bahrain rejected the claimants' allegations of compromising the activists' devices with surveillance software, but the high court judge "determined, on the basis of specialist testimony, that the claimants had discharged the responsibility upon them of demonstrating on the preponderance of evidence that their devices were compromised by malicious software by Bahraini representatives." Claimants' Comments Shehabi, a founder of the dissident party al-Wefaq, welcomed with the legal proceedings, stating: "I am pleased 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 pursue their non-violent critics with multiple methods including violating their private lives and equipment." Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after experiencing frequent detention within the country, stated: "Our journey has now reached the supreme judicial body in the land. I have a duty to expose what I endured when I believe Bahrain hacked my computer. The effect has been devastating – especially for those who had confidence in me, and for my friends and family." "Repressive governments 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 UK territory." Both men have had their nationality revoked. Legal Perspective A senior legal representative commented: "This case raise essential issues about accountability for the deployment of invasive monitoring systems against political activists and human rights defenders. Our represented individuals, and numerous additional people we advocate for, have anticipated a long time for resolution on these matters."