🔗 Share this article The Gulf nation to Argue at British Supreme Court Over State Immunity in Surveillance Claims Bahrain is preparing to argue before the Britain's highest judicial body that it enjoys state immunity from accusations that it deployed surveillance software on the devices of two dissidents during their residence in the UK capital. Court Proceedings Background The Gulf country has been denied its immunity argument in the lower court and court of appeal. Taking the matter to the highest court highlights the importance of this matter for the nation's global standing. Should Bahrain prevail, the decision could have broader consequences for how authoritarian states employ digital spyware to track and potentially harass political dissidents residing in the United Kingdom. Central Issue of Legal Proceedings The legal proceedings, scheduled to begin this midweek, will focus on whether the two men have the standing to seek compensation despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than addressing whether damages are applicable. Allegations and Proof Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahrain authorities used German-made FinFisher spyware to compromise their computers while they were living in London, resulting in emotional distress. The court of appeal last autumn supported a previous court decision that the State Immunity Act 1978 does not provide Bahrain sovereign immunity against their allegations. Article 5 of the legislation specifies that a country does not have protection from claims for personal injury resulting from an action or inaction that occurred in the UK. The ruling will also offer guidance regarding additional surveillance allegations being pursued by legal teams on behalf of clients. Technical Details Attorneys stated that "FinSpy software can gather large quantities of data from infected devices, including recording every keystroke, telephone conversations, messages, emails, scheduling information, real-time chats, contacts lists, browsing history, images, databases, documents and recordings. It allows recording of real-time sound from the equipment's audio input and visual recording device." Judicial Analysis The court of appeal found that external control, from abroad, of a computer located in the United Kingdom represented an action within the UK's jurisdiction. Even if the hacking took place overseas, the consequence was that the territorial sovereignty of the United Kingdom had been violated. A foreign state does not have protection for psychological harm resulting from an act in the UK, even if certain acts take place abroad. The court also ruled that "personal injury" as defined in the state immunity act included independent psychological damage. Bahrain's Stance The appeal court ruling stated that Bahrain rejected the accusers' claims of infecting the activists' devices with surveillance software, but the initial court justice "found, on the based on specialist testimony, that the plaintiffs had met the responsibility upon them of demonstrating on the balance of probabilities that their devices were compromised by malicious software by Bahraini representatives." Plaintiffs' Statements Shehabi, a founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the legal proceedings, saying: "I am pleased with the progress to date of the legal proceedings regarding the hacking of my electronic device. It delivers a strong signal to foreign governments who target their non-violent critics with various means including intruding into their private lives and devices." Mohammed, who left Bahrain in 2006 after facing repeated arrests within the country, stated: "Our journey has now reached the highest court in the land. I have a responsibility to reveal what I experienced when I believe Bahrain compromised my device. The impact has been profound – 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 permitted to hide behind state protection to advance their cross-border persecution on UK territory." The two individuals have had their nationality withdrawn. Attorney Commentary A senior legal representative commented: "This case raise fundamental questions about accountability for the deployment of invasive monitoring systems against civil society members and human rights defenders. Our represented individuals, and numerous additional people we represent, have anticipated a considerable period for resolution on these matters."