🔗 Share this article The Gulf nation to Present Case at UK Highest Court Over Sovereign Immunity in Surveillance Claims Bahrain is preparing to claim before the Britain's highest judicial body that it enjoys state immunity from allegations that it installed spyware on the computers of two activists during their residence in the UK capital. Court Proceedings Context The Gulf country has previously lost its immunity argument in both 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. If Bahrain succeed, the ruling could have broader consequences for how authoritarian states utilize surveillance technology to track and potentially harass opposition figures living in the UK. Central Issue of Supreme Court Hearing The supreme court hearing, scheduled to begin this Wednesday, will concentrate on whether the two individuals have the legal right to claim compensation despite Bahrain's immunity claim, rather than addressing whether compensation is warranted. Claims and Proof Dr Saeed Shehabi and Moosa Mohammed allege the Bahrain authorities used Germany-produced FinFisher spyware to infiltrate their electronic devices while they were living in London, causing emotional distress. The court of appeal last October upheld a previous court decision that the 1978 immunity legislation does not grant Bahrain state protection against their claims. Section 5 of the act specifies that a state does not have immunity from claims for physical or psychological harm caused by an act or omission that occurred in the UK. The decision will also offer guidance regarding other spyware claims being handled by legal teams on behalf of affected individuals. Technical Details Legal representatives claimed that "The surveillance program can collect vast amounts of data from infected devices, including recording every keystroke, voice calls, text communications, emails, scheduling information, real-time chats, contacts lists, internet activity, images, data collections, documents and videos. It allows recording of real-time sound from the device's microphone and camera." Legal Interpretation The appellate court determined that external control, overseas, of a computer situated in the UK constituted an act within the UK's jurisdiction. Although the cyber intrusion occurred abroad, the effect was that the national jurisdiction of the UK had been violated. A overseas nation does not have protection for psychological harm caused by an act in the United Kingdom, although certain activities take place abroad. The court also determined that "personal injury" as defined in the state immunity act included standalone psychiatric injury. Bahrain's Stance The appellate decision stated that Bahrain rejected the accusers' claims of compromising the dissidents' computers with spyware, but the initial court justice "found, on the based on 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." Claimants' Comments Shehabi, a co-founder of the opposition group al-Wefaq, expressed satisfaction with the supreme court hearing, saying: "I'm satisfied with the outcome so far of the legal proceedings regarding the cyber intrusion of my computer. 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 left Bahrain in 2006 after facing frequent detention within the nation, commented: "This process has now reached the supreme judicial body in the country. I have a duty to expose what I endured when I believe Bahrain compromised my device. The effect has been profound – especially for those who placed their trust in me, and for my friends and family." "Abusive foreign states like Bahrain must be held accountable for destroying our lives. They cannot be permitted to hide behind state protection to pursue their transnational repression on British soil." Both men have had their Bahraini citizenship revoked. Legal Perspective A senior legal representative commented: "This case raise essential issues about responsibility for the use of invasive monitoring systems against political activists and members of civil society. Our represented individuals, and numerous additional people we advocate for, have waited a considerable period for resolution on these matters."