🔗 Share this article The Gulf nation to Argue at British Highest Court Over State Immunity in Surveillance Claims Bahrain is set to claim before the Britain's highest judicial body that it enjoys state immunity from accusations that it installed spyware on the devices of two dissidents during their residence in the UK capital. Court Proceedings Background Bahrain has been denied its sovereign immunity claim in the high court and court of appeal. Taking the matter to the highest court demonstrates the importance of this issue for the country's international reputation. Should Bahrain prevail, the ruling could have broader consequences for how authoritarian states utilize surveillance technology to monitor and potentially harass political dissidents living in the United Kingdom. Central Issue of Supreme Court Hearing The legal proceedings, scheduled to begin this Wednesday, will focus on whether the two individuals have the legal right to seek compensation despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than determining whether compensation is warranted. Allegations and Proof Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed claim the Bahraini government used Germany-produced FinFisher surveillance software to compromise their computers while they were residing in London, resulting in psychological harm. The appellate court last autumn supported a previous court decision that the 1978 immunity legislation does not grant Bahrain sovereign immunity against their claims. Article 5 of the legislation specifies that a state 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 provide clarity regarding additional surveillance allegations being handled by legal teams on behalf of clients. Technical Details Legal representatives stated that "The surveillance program can gather vast amounts of data from compromised equipment, including capturing every keystroke, voice calls, messages, emails, calendar records, instant messaging, contacts lists, internet activity, images, data collections, documents and recordings. It enables capture of live audio from the device's microphone and visual recording device." Legal Interpretation The court of appeal found that external control, from abroad, of a computer situated in the UK represented an action within the British territory. Even if the hacking occurred abroad, the consequence was that the national jurisdiction of the United Kingdom had suffered interference. A foreign state does not have protection for personal injury resulting from an act in the United Kingdom, although some acts occur overseas. The judicial body also ruled that "psychological harm" as defined in the immunity legislation encompassed independent psychological damage. Defense Position The appeal court ruling noted that Bahrain denied the claimants' allegations of infecting the dissidents' computers with surveillance software, but the initial court justice "found, on the based on expert evidence, that the plaintiffs had met the responsibility upon them of demonstrating on the balance of probabilities that their devices were infected by malicious software by Bahrain's servants or agents." Claimants' Comments Shehabi, a founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, welcomed with the legal proceedings, saying: "I am pleased with the progress to date of the court case regarding the hacking of my electronic device. It delivers a clear message to overseas authorities who target their peaceful political opponents with multiple methods including violating their private lives and devices." Mohammed, who fled Bahrain in 2006 after facing repeated arrests within the nation, commented: "This process has now arrived at the highest court in the land. I have a responsibility to reveal what I endured when I am convinced Bahrain hacked my device. The impact 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 allowed to hide behind diplomatic immunity to pursue their cross-border persecution on UK territory." The two individuals have had their Bahraini citizenship revoked. Legal Perspective A lead attorney stated: "These proceedings raise fundamental questions about responsibility for the deployment of invasive monitoring systems against political activists and members of civil society. Our represented individuals, and many others we represent, have anticipated a long time for clarity on these matters."