UN chief under pressure over Gaddafi letter

From The Scotsman , Scotlands leading newspaper.

by TIM CORNWELL and TRACEY LAWSON (21/10/99)
KOFI Annan, the secretary general of the United Nations, was under increasing pressure last night to reveal the contents of a document passed to Colonel Muammar al-Gaddafi along with a letter detailing the handover of two Libyans awaiting trial over the Lockerbie bombing. Relatives of US victims demanded that Mr Annan make public the details of a secret annex to his letter amid fears that it contained a promise of immunity for Col Gaddafi should he be implicated in the bombing during the forthcoming trial.

The veteran MP Teddy Taylor added to those fears when he claimed that the Government had offered the Libyan leadership immunity in exchange for the two suspects for trial. Fresh concerns that the UN and British and US officials may have struck a deal with Col Gaddafi were raised after three US senators this week asked to see the annex, the existence of which was previously unknown.

George Williams, the president of the Victims of Pan Am Flight 103 Inc , the largest US victims’ organisation which represents 160 of 189 American families, said yesterday: "We want to see this letter. We are not going to give up until we see this letter. We are going to kick people’s butts until we see the letter." He claimed that one US official had told him that the annex included a promise that "it isn’t the intention of the trial to embarrass the Libyan regime". Mr Williams said: "That means to us there was a deal with Gaddafi. Unless we see the letter we don’t know what's going on and we are extremely concerned about it."

Mr Taylor, the Conservative MP for Rochford and Southend, said he understood that the Government had offered the Libyan leadership immunity.

The former MP for Glasgow Cathcart, who met Colonel Gaddafi in Libya in 1991, to discuss the shooting of WPC Yvonne Fletcher outside the Libyan Embassy in London in 1984, said: "I thought this had been made clear. The Government had agreed to immunity for the Libyan government and for Colonel Gaddafi. "The view of the Libyans is that they were not involved in Lockerbie in anyway and they have a grave suspicion that if they agreed to a trial, the United States and Britain would use it to have a go at their leadership. To deal with that fear I understand they were given an assurance."

The Foreign Office and the Crown Office have both insisted that no such deal was struck. A spokesman for the Foreign Office said there had been no political interference in the trial which is due to take place in a Scottish court set up in the Hague in the Netherlands next year. "The exchange of correspondence achieved what we wanted which was the successful hand-over of the two suspects. "We have not made any deals with the Libyans. There is nothing in Kofi Annan’s letter that can be construed as offering immunity to anyone."

Dr Jim Swire, the spokesman for UK Families Flight 103, appeared less concerned about the emergence of the annex than the US families. Dr Swire, whose daughter, Flora, was among 270 passengers killed when the aircraft exploded over Lockerbie in 1988, said he felt confident that it contained no immunity deal for the Libyan leader. He said: "If it were the case that the Libyan government were given immunity, I would object. But I don’t think that this is the case."

Lockerbie sanctions discussed at UN General Assembly

21/10/1999 UN General AssemblyThe UN General Assembly met this morning to continue its consideration of the report of the Security Council. (For further background details see UN press releases GA/9637 and GA/9638 dated 20 October.)

GUMA AMER (Libya) said more improvements to the report of the Security Council would enhance the efficiency of that organ. The report indicated an increase in the number of open meetings. However, given the importance of the subjects discussed, non-members of the Council should be informed of those meetings beforehand so as to be prepared prior to the discussion process. Many States found themselves confronted with resolutions that had already been prepared. According to the report, the Council had held 239 closed meetings. Yet the report did not clearly indicate the opinions of the members during those sessions. Too much reliance on those closed settings could destroy the Council’s transparency and prevent participation by the majority of Member States. When did the Council start the practice of closed discussions, and why? Although it was master of its own decisions, could the Council make decisions behind the back of the international community, and without its participation? More open and public meetings were needed.

The Assembly should not simply take note of the report. Member States should be given the opportunity, in accordance with the Charter, to make their opinions known. It was also unacceptable that the Council was still using rules of procedure that were over 50 years old. While that body had held many meetings devoted to the problems of African countries, it paid close attention only to issues linked to the Council’s own concerns -– and not to issues of primarily African concern, which were paid mere lip service. The Council should aim to break the cycle of violence that was plaguing the continent. While the Council was entrusted with the maintenance of international peace and security, the Charter also provided for participation by the Assembly in establishing general guidelines for that process. The report of the Sanction Committee had addressed the problems of sanctions against his own country. Libya had fulfilled its obligations in light of Council resolutions, yet the United States had prevented the lifting of sanctions.

One argument used by the United States was that Libya supported terrorism. That had been refuted by the Secretary-General, he said. The fact was that his country supported legitimate struggle. The second United States argument was that Libya had not cooperated with the Scottish Court on the Lockerbie issue. As stated previously, his country was more than willing to cooperate with that body in order to have sanctions lifted. The United States also argued that Libya should pay damages to victims of Pan Am Flight 103. Damages could be paid only when a court decision was taken. The United States claim undermined international law and human rights. A suspect was innocent until proven otherwise. If that was not the case, Libya could request damages for the seven years of suffering inflicted on it and the tremendous material and human losses. Only one State was disregarding the position of the other Member States and the positions of the Non- Aligned Movement, the Organization of African Unity (OAU) and the League of Arab States , who had all repeatedly opposed sanctions against Libya.

Background info: In-dept coverage of UN's Lockerbie sanctions 1992-1999
See also Libya's UN ambassadors comments on the same topic at the UN General Assembly opening debate.

Annan's Letter to Libya Summarizes Accords on Lockerbie

UNITED NATIONS (Oct. 20) XINHUA - A U.N. spokesman said Wednesday that U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan recently wrote a letter to Libya, and the letter had an annex which summarized agreements reached with the Libyan Government on the issue of the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. Fred Eckhard, the U.N. spokesman, made the statement in response to a question about reports that three U.S. lawmakers in Washington D.C. were demanding copies of the letter.

The annex summarized agreements reached with the Libyan Government clarifying certain aspects of the details of the hand-over of the suspects that had been negotiated by the South African and Saudi envoys, he said. "There was a need to put on paper precisely what was agreed, and that was primarily for the Americans and the British, who were shown that letter," Eckhard said, adding that consultations had been held with both governments on what had been acceptable to them.

"So it was a condition of what everyone agreed -- the Libyans, the Americans and the British -- which was then sent off as an annex to this letter," he said. "There was nothing mysterious or secret about the letter, but there was the matter of confidentiality of correspondence." The spokesman said that he would check on the letter's exact status.

Senators ask Albright for UN letter on Lockerbie

UNITED NATIONS, Oct 19 (Reuters) - Three U.S. senators have sought assurances from Secretary of State Madeleine Albright that no promises had been made to shield Libyan leaders from complicity during the Lockerbie bombing trial, according to their letter released on Wednesday. At issue is a document given to Libyan leader Muammar Gadaffi last February by U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan that families of the victims say includes a U.S.-British pledge that ``the trial is not intended to undermine the Libyan regime.''

Annan's letter was among the last documents given to Libya before Tripoli last April handed over for trial before a Scottish Court in the Netherlands two suspects accused of planting a bomb on Pan American Flight 103.

Background info: In-dept coverage of Lockerbie suspects' handover, April 1999

Annan's office served as a conduit between Libya and the United States and Britain in arrangements for the hand over. With the trial of Abdel Basset al-Megrahi and Al-Amin Khalifa Fahima scheduled for February, three Democratic senators -- Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, and Robert Torricelli and Frank Lautenberg, both of New Jersey -- asked for a copy of or access to the Annan letter.

``As the trial date for the suspects in the Pan Am 103 cases approaches, relatives of the victims have contacted us to seek reassurance that no 'secret deal' was reached which would prevent the Lord Advocate, the Scottish prosecutor for the case, from pursuing evidence implicating Colonel Gadaffi or senior Libyan officials,'' they wrote in a letter to Albright. Lord Hardie, who will lead the prosecution, visited with the families in Washington in August and said he would indict other people if evidence of their involvement emerged at the trial. ``There has been no deal,'' he told reporters then. ``Libya has been given no promises or inducements''

Nevertheless the senators in their letter dated Oct. 5, said that without access to the U.N. letter and an annex sent by Annan to Libya ``the relatives' doubts remain.'' ``So that we may be able to respond to the concerns of the victims' families, we would greatly appreciate a copy of, or access to, the Annan-Gadaffi letter, or what is understood to be the final copy of the letter and any documents related to the letter, such as previous drafts and annexes,'' the letter said. New York Republican Representative Benjamin Gilman earlier in the year made a similar request.

Susan Cohen of Cape May Court House, New Jersey, whose 20-year-old daughter Theodora was one of 35 Syracuse University students who perished in the crash, said U.S. officials had told the families that the letter did not exist or they did not have a copy of it. ``That is ludicrous. The congressional oversight office should be able to see any letter the U.S. has signed on to,'' she said. None of the exchanges between Annan and the Libyan government concerning details of the hand over have been released by the United Nations.

Background info: Overview of American official opinions on the Lockerbie crisis, including copies of above mentioned senators recent letters The above mentioned letter will appear on this website early next week.
About the Cohens and their Pan Am 103-lobby activities

Scots police in Libya to investigate Lockerbie

LONDON, Oct 19 (Reuters+The Independent) - Scottish police said on Tuesday they had sent a number of officers to Libya as part of investigations into the 1988 Lockerbie airliner bombing. ``Officers are carrying out enquiries in Libya as part of the ongoing investigation into the Lockerbie accident,'' said a spokesman for Dumfries and Galloway police in southern Scotland. He gave no further details.

Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora was one of the victims, welcomed the police investigation, saying it proved that the Scottish authorities were not being restrained in their prosecution of the case. The visit, he said, countered reports from American relatives of the Lockerbie dead that a deal had been done to protect Mr Megrahi and Mr Fhimah.

Lockerbie families applaud French quest for indiction of leader Khadafi

NEW YORK, Oct 7 (AFP) Relatives of victims of the Lockerbie bombing on Thursday applauded the launch of a French inquiry into Libyan leader Moamer Khadafi's role in the 1989 destruction of a French airliner over Africa. "No one can seriously believe that a major act of terror like the bombing of a commercial airliner by Libyan agents could possibly have been carried out without direct orders from Khadafi," the American families said. In a statement they said the decision of Judge Jean-Louis Bruguiere to open the investigation "strikes a blow for justice and common sense."

The families described the loss of a DC-10 owned by French company UTA on September 19, 1989 as "virtually identical to the bombing of Pan Am 103 just nine months earlier." The families form a group known as Justice for Pan Am 103 -- the flight number of the aircraft that blew up over the Scottish village of Lockerbie on December 21, 1998, killing all 259 passengers and crew plus 11 people on the ground. The group commended Bruguiere's "courageous" decision on Wednesday to investigate allegations that Khadafi was "an accomplice to murder" in the bombing of UTA flight 772.

They also commended the "courage and persistence" of relatives of the 170 people who died aboard the DC-10 when it exploded over the desert in the west African state of Niger. "We realise that it will be extremely difficult, and perhaps impossible, to actually put Khadafi where he belongs -- on trial for terrorism and mass murder," the families said. "But this decision, at the very least, points the spotlight back where it belongs, on the godfather of terror himself, and should make it more difficult for him to pass himself off as a respected statesman."

Background info: Overview of the present Pan Am 103 victims-groups (1998)
1997-article from Rosemary Wolfe, head of Justice for Pan Am 103

Libya says failure to lift sanctions harms U.N.

UNITED NATIONS, Sept 30 (Reuters) - Libya said on Thursday that failure to completely lift sanctions imposed on it by the Security Council in connection with the bombing of an airliner over Lockerbie, Scotland, would threaten the council's credibility. In a speech to the General Assembly, Libyan U.N. envoy Abuzed Dorda referred to the blocking by the United States in July of any move to rescind the sanctions that had only been suspended after two Libyan suspects in the Lockerbie case were handed over for trial before a Scottish court in the Netherlands.

``Preventing the Security Council from adopting a resolution, that was overdue, lifting the sanctions -- which should not have been imposed in the first place -- will threaten the credibility of the council and its ability to honour its obligations,'' Dorda said. ``It will also reinforce the impression that the Security Council does not act in compliance with the will of the majority of the United Nations member states,'' he said. ``The will of one state cannot represent the will of the entire international community,'' he added, alluding to the United States.

Background info: Everything about UN's Lockerbie-embargo against Libya 1992-1999
The official website of Libya's diplomatic representation at the UN

This is an official summarizing of Dorda's comment on Pan Am 103:
UN Press Release GA/9618 ABUZED OMAR DORDA (Libya) questioned the "boycott" of his country -- since a sanction was a form of punishment for a strictly proven action that had been committed. The Council had not been presented with any proof or evidence that could prove that either Libya or even the two Libyan suspects had actually committed any action which led to the Pan Am 103 crash over the Scottish town of Lockerbie. The sanctions resolutions had been passed merely on the suspicious grounds of two Libyan citizens. That was a form of collective punishment against an entire people for a mere suspicion, uninvestigated, without a trial.

He said the summary of the scenario on the suspicion had been refuted at that time. Malta had conducted an official investigation whose findings demonstrated that no unaccompanied suitcase had been loaded in the flight from Malta to Frankfurt. The Frankfurt authorities had also investigated the matter and reached the conclusion that no unaccompanied suitcase had reached its airport from Malta, nor left it for London. From the very first moment that the accusation had been transmitted by the media, and before the matter was presented to the Council, Libya had asked the other party to provide the judiciary authorities in Libya with the findings they had, so that investigations could be commenced accordingly; or, alternatively, to send an investigator to Libya to participate in the investigation; or, further, to send Libyan judges to review the case file. The other offered option was allowing a neutral party or parties, or the United Nations, to conduct an investigation.

All of those requests had been refused, he said. His country had also requested the application of article 14 of the Montreal Convention of 1971 or resort to the International Court of Justice. In addition, the Non-Aligned Movement had recommended lifting of the sanctions if the other party to the dispute did not agree to the suspension of the sanctions during review by the Council in July 1999.

Also, he said that in June 1998 the OAU had decided that its member States would no longer comply with the sanctions if the other party continued to reject any of the options proposed by the international organizations to resolve the conflict. Faced with two rulings of the International Court of Justice and the steadfast positions of regional and international organizations, the other party had only two options left: either accept trial in a third country or allow the international community to lift the sanctions without reverting to the Council. Such a situation would pose real threats that might undermine that body, and subsequently undermine the grip of that party over it. The other party had therefore had no option but to accept unwillingly and had declared its acceptance of a trial in a third country. On 5 April, the two suspects in the Lockerbie incident had arrived of their own free will in the Netherlands.

Had the other party fulfilled its obligations and shown respect for the resolutions made in the name of the Council? he asked. No. In fact, the other party had prevented the adoption of a resolution by the Council to suspend the sanctions, and had instead unwillingly agreed to a statement by the Security Council President to the Press.

He said that three months after the sanctions had been suspended, the Secretary-General had presented a report to the Council (document S/1999/726) on Libya's compliance with the provisions of Council resolutions 748 (1992) and 883 (1993). After consideration of the report, the Council had been unable to lift the sanctions against his country because of the intransigence of the United States, a country which was party to the dispute. That could only be considered as reneging on previous commitments. Moreover, it was ignoring the Secretary-General's report, whose contents led to only one conclusion -- that Libya had fulfilled all its obligations under Council resolutions. What justification then, if any, did the United States have for using the veto to prevent the Council from adopting a resolution to lift sanctions on Libya. First, that country reiterated the accusations it had made since the fabrication of the Lockerbie case, namely that Libya supported terrorism.

The Secretary-General's report had categorically refuted that claim, he continued. Paragraphs 29 to 34 and other pages ascertained the baseless nature of that accusation. Reports made by the American State Department and statements made by present and ex-officials of United States administrations also all pointed to the fact that such claims could no longer be sustained. On the contrary, Libya was a victim of American terrorism. It was the United States which sheltered, financed, trained and armed terrorists and transported them to his country in 1984 and later on to commit acts of terrorism. Those who give shelter to terrorists wanted by several other countries were not in a position to refer to others with a description which only applied to them. Second, the United States said that Libya had to cooperate with the Scottish Court in the Netherlands. That was meaningless because his country had undertaken to cooperate with the Court, as the Secretary- General's report had shown. Council resolution 1192 (1998) called on all parties to cooperate with the Court. How then could that be used as an excuse to prevent the Council from acting in accordance with its obligations by lifting the sanctions on Libya.

The third reason, he continued, was the demand that Libya pay compensation to the families of the victims. Demanding compensation from his country presupposed that the suspects were guilty, and made a mockery of the principle of international law that the accused was presumed innocent until proven guilty. Such a demand ruled out any possibility for the Scottish Court to find the suspects not guilty, and deprived Libya of the right to $70 million of compensation for the damages and losses which the Libyan people had experienced for over seven years. His country demanded that the Council adopt a resolution immediately that would completely lift the sanctions imposed on it. It also demanded that politicization of the case should not be allowed after it had taken its legal course. The case should be left totally to the Scottish Court without interference from any political entity, including the Council. If the Council continued to be prevented from adopting such a decision, Libya would take all the steps which it deemed necessary to guarantee fairness, including raising a constitutional dilemma between the highest and most judiciary organ -- the International Court of Justice, and the Council and the Assembly.

VITAL LOCKERBIE NOTES MAY HAVE BEEN DESTROYED, CLAIM

12/9/99 Sky News A claim that dozens of police notebooks relating to the Lockerbie air tragedy have been destroyed could have severe implications for a trial next year. The pads were apparently destroyed five years after the 1988 crash that took 270 lives.The Scotland on Sunday newspaper believed the loss of the notebooks could affect court proceedings scheduled to take place in Holland early next year. The newspaper said police officers would now have to give evidence years later without being able to refer back to detailed notes taken at the time.

It claimed some of the books covered the recovery of fragments of wreckage. It is not known whether police destroyed them mistakenly or whether the Crown Office, responsible for prosecutions in Scotland, did not order them to be kept. The newspaper quoted sources, said to be close to the defence, as saying: "Police officers have told us they could not give detailed statements because they did not have their notebooks.

"When we asked why, the answer was the notebooks had been taken off them and were later destroyed. In a case like this the order should have been given that they were kept. For some reason the order was either not given or was ignored. We are aware of dozens of notebooks which have been destroyed." Yet prosecution officials and police are not commenting on the revelations.

A Crown Office spokesman said: "We cannot make any comment as it would be inappropriate to comment about what may be evidential matters in the Lockerbie trial." Dumfries and Galloway police, that covers the Lockerbie area, also declined to comment. Dozens of police notebooks relating to the Lockerbie air disaster have been destroyed, it was claimed today.

The notebooks were destroyed five years after the 1988 crash which claimed 270 lives, for which two Libyans are alleged to be responsible. Prosecution officials and police declined to comment on the report in the Scotland on Sunday newspaper, which said the lack of the notebooks could have implications at the trial due to take place in The Netherlands early next year.

``Police officers will have made written statements based on their notebooks, but these probably will not be admissible,'' Robert Black, professor of law at Edinburgh University and an expert on the Lockerbie case, told Scotland on Sunday. ``The lack of the notebooks will be useful to the defence. I imagine police officers will have to say they do not remember exactly where they found x, y or z,'' he added.

PRESS HERE to read the full transcript with Dan Cohen and O'Reilly.

---

Lockerbie prosecutor says others could be indicted

WASHINGTON, Aug 23 (Reuters and others) - The chief prosecutor at the impending trial of two Libyans charged with the 1988 bombing of a Pan Am airliner over Lockerbie, Scotland, said on Monday he would indict other people if evidence of their involvement emerged at the trial. Lord Hardie, Scotland's Lord Advocate who will lead the prosecution at the trial due to start in the Netherlands early next year, denied any suggestion of a deal with Libya to hold back any evidence.

``If in the course of the trial evidence comes available of the involvement of other people I will take the appropriate steps to indict (them),'' Hardie told reporters after briefing relatives of U.S. victims of the bombing on the form of the trial. He said they could not be tried during the course of the trial of Abdel Basset al-Megrahi and Al-Amin Khalifa Fahima. Asked about reports of a deal with Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi not to admit evidence implicating top figures in Libya, Hardie said: ``There has been no deal and there will be no deals to hold back any evidence in this case.''

``I am an independent prosecutor, I will not accept any suggestion that I have held back any evidence. I will not tolerate that,'' he said. U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno also addressed the hearing stressing that the trial would be open and fair.

Some families feared they would be "props" in an international show of justice. At least one attendee said the tone of closed meetings was more suited to selling vacation trips than answering pressing questions about the February trial in the Netherlands. A few nudged each other in disbelief when the Scottish court's site registrar showed slides of the "flowers and bike paths" in the Dutch town where some families will stay during the trial. They got stationery from the local police department that handled the 1988 bombing investigation and visitors' guides to Scotland.

One parent was also angry at restrictions imposed for this week's meetings. Each family was allowed one question to the Scottish authorities and it had to be in writing.

"I couldn't believe what I was watching," said New Jersey resident Daniel Cohen, whose daughter Theodora died in the bombing. "It was like a grotesque British comedy. I think it's all an attempt to show what a wonderful job they're doing. It doesn't work."

Some of the U.S. relatives cast doubt on the process, saying they feared it would exonerate Gaddafi, whom they believe to be the main culprit, but most expressed relief that finally some legal action was being taken. Daniel Cohen, a vocal agitator for strong action against Libya, asked at the meeting for access to a U.N. document which he said made clear there was an agreement that the trial would not be used to undermine the Libyan government.

Cohen's wife Susan told Reuters: ``Getting the two hit-men is not justice'' and said: ``What I object to is that the trial is the result of a political deal.'' ``There is always a minority opposed to everything and always looking at the motives behind the action,'' Glenn Johnson, who lost his daughter Beth Ann, 21, told reporters after the hearing.

Chester Phillips of Little Rock, whose son, Sandy, 27, was one of 35 Syracuse University students on the ill-fated flight, said he was impressed by the ''professionalism'' of the Scottish authorities and believed they would present a convincing case. Faced with ''no trial or this trial, I believe this is the best solution, '' Phillips said.

William Marek, who lost his 30-year-old sister Elizabeth in the bombing, said: ``It has been 10 years now and at least something is being done, at least there is going to be a trial.'' State Department spokesman James Foley conceded there were varied views among the relatives about the case but said Washington was proud of its achievement of securing Libyan compliance with its demand to submit the suspects to trial. He stressed it would be a fair trial. ``It must produce whatever evidence is relevant to the case, to finding out what happened and how it happened and who was involved.

``We trust that this will be a free trial, a fair trial and we cannot predict what will come out of that trial,'' he said at a regular State Department news conference. Hardie told the relatives closed circuit television of the proceedings would be made available to family members, but not to the public. He said he would ensure that all family members would have an equal opportunity to visit the trial itself.

A Justice Department spokesman said it would pay for the travel and housing of American relatives who decide to attend the trial. A Justice Department official said contrary to the legal procedure in most U.S. states, families won't be allowed to make an ``impact victim statement'' during the trial. These statements are supposed to influence the jury decision by emphasising the families' psychological sufferings after the loss of their loved ones.

EXTRA! Read a CNN transcript of the above news.
and: Read all about the victims of Pan Am 103 and their fight for justice.

---

Lockerbie families briefed on forthcoming trial

EDINBURGH, Aug 19 (Reuters) - Scotland's top law official briefed British families of the victims of the 1988 Lockerbie airliner bombing on Thursday on arrangements for the forthcoming trial in the Netherlands. Lord Hardie, Scotland's lord advocate or top prosecutor, was outlining facilities available to families during the trial -- expected to start early next year -- and answering any of their questions.

Hardie will lead a team of prosecutors at the trial of two Libyans accused of carrying out Scotland's biggest mass murder by planting a bomb on the Pan Am airliner that exploded over the small town of Lockerbie, killing all 259 people aboard and 11 people on the ground.

``We expect Lord Hardie will meet with the families for several hours to brief them on the arrangements for the trial and answer any questions the families might have,'' Howard Hart, a spokesman at Hardie's office, told Reuters. Hardie was also expected to tell the families that the government would consider requests for financial assistance to help relatives attend the proceedings at Camp Zeist, a converted military base that will house the makeshift Scottish court.

British and U.S. officials were also considering using closed-circuit television to broadcast the trial to families in Britain and the United States that were unable to attend, the spokesman said. The broadcasts would not be made public, he added.

.......but perhaps you will find a daily review and much more information from the trial HERE ... once the trial has begun!

---

Libya demands the lifting of U.N. Lockerbie-sanctions

UNITED NATIONS, July 6 (Reuters) - Libya demanded on Tuesday that the United Nations lift sanctions against it, noting that it had surrendered two men accused of the midair bombing of a Pan Am airliner over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988. ``The politicization of this legal dispute, in whatever form or by anyone, is not acceptable,'' Libya's U.N. Ambassador Abuzed Omar Dorda said in a nine-page letter to the 15-member U.N. Security Council.

Dorda, in praising Annan's report, said ``there can be no justifications or pretexts whatsoever for anyone to oppose the immediate lifting by the Security Council of these sanctions.'' He said Libya had cooperated and had assured the United Nations it would pay compensation if the two suspects were convicted ``and a final verdict is rendered to that effect.''

On terrorism, he noted that Annan had reported on Libya's cooperation with Britain several years ago in connection with the Irish Republican Army. In an apparent reference to the United States, Dorda said Tripoli was willing to discuss any bilateral issue. But he said the council ``should not allow itself to be used by anyone for achieving certainly political goals.''

Background info: Everything about UN's Lockerbie-embargo against Libya 1992-1999
The official website of Libya's diplomatic representation at the UN

Meanwhile:
HONG KONG, Jul 05, 1999 (Asia Pulse via COMTEX) -- The Hong Kong Government Friday gazetted the United Nations Sanctions (Libya) (Suspension of Operation) Regulation 1999 and United Nations Sanctions (Libya) (Prohibition of Flights) (Suspension of Operation) Regulation 1999.

The two Regulations seek to give effect to the directive from the Central People's Government to suspend the implementation of sanctions against Libya under the United Nations Security Council Resolutions No 748 and 883. Members of the public who have queries on the Regulations may contact Mr Nicholas C T Chan, Assistant Secretary for Trade and Industry, at Tel: 2918 7472 (Fax: 2877 5650).

(Hong Kong Government Information Service.) ASIA PULSE

(July 8) XINHUA - Cyprus has suspended the sanctions imposed on Libya according to U.N. resolutions, the Cyprus News Agency reported Thursday. The decision was taken Wednesday at a cabinet meeting chaired by President Glafcos Clerides.

---

Victims' families will attend trial, briefings in Washington

WASHINGTON (AP) 2/7/99 - Families of victims of the 1988 bombing of a Pan Am jumbo jet will be sent to the Netherlands to attend the trial of two Libyans accused of the crime. Fines collected from American criminals will pay their way. Also, the Justice Department is setting up a World Wide Web site to help the families keep track of developments before the trial, which may not start before next February, and Scottish prosecutors are being invited to brief the families at a Washington hotel next month.

Travel and other expenses will be covered by a U.S. fund made up of fines collected from convicted Americans, Kathryn Turman, of the Justice Department's office for victims of crime, said Friday.

Susan Cohen, mother of Theodora Cohen, who died in the bombing, said ``the fact that the government is finally - after years of treating the families badly - providing information is fine.'' But Cohen, in a telephone interview from her home in Cape May Court House, N.J., alleged that the plan involves a U.S. government public relations effort to win the families' approval of a trial she denounced as ``a farce.'' ``It was a political deal not to go after (Libyan leader Moammar) Gadhafi, who ordered the murders,'' she said.

Background info: Who are Susan and Dan Cohen ?

---

U.N. Can't Determine Libya's Status

UNITED NATIONS (AP) 2/7/99 - While Libya has turned over two suspects in the 1988 Pan Am bombing and promised to cooperate with the trial, the U.N. chief said today he couldn't determine whether Libya had fulfilled U.N. demands for sanctions to be permanently lifted. Because the trial hasn't started yet, and isn't expected to before February 2000, Secretary-General Kofi Annan said he wasn't in a position to provide any information about Libya's compliance with those elements of the resolutions.

The report now goes to the Security Council, where the United States has said it would block any attempt now to permanently lift sanctions, which were suspended April 5 when the two men arrived for trial in the Netherlands. In the report, Annan noted that the United States wanted further demonstration from Libya that it had renounced terrorism. Britain, however, was satisfied with Libya's response to date, Annan said.

Though the suspension of sanctions allowed Libya to resume international air links and removed an arms embargo, Libya is looking for the council to permanently lift the 7-year-old measures because of the international recognition it would give the Tripoli government.

The United States met Libyan diplomats for the first time on June 12 when Annan called in chief representatives from all three countries: Peter Burleigh of the United States, Jeremy Greenstock of Britain and Abuzed Omar Dorda of Libya. "The participants exchanged views and ideas and agreed that there was a need for a follow-up meeting," Annan said.

But Burleigh said then and again on Thursday in comments to reporters that it was premature to lift sanctions because some of the requirements, such as Libya's cooperation with the court and compensation to the victims' families, could not be decided until the trial, due to begin in February, was under way.

In practice reimposing the suspended sanctions would be nearly impossible as it would take another vote in the Security Council which would not have enough support. But Libya is anxious to get the sanctions lifted completely as well as reestablish formal relations with the United States and Britain.

Background info: Everything about UN's Lockerbie-embargo against Libya 1992-1999

---

Lockerbie trial not hurt by press report -judges

EDINBURGH, June 30 (Reuters) - Scottish judges on Wednesday rejected a claim by the two suspects of the Lockerbie airliner bombing that they would not get a fair trial because a newspaper reported Libya's leader had ordered the attack.

Lawyers for the Libyan pair held in the Netherlands said their forthcoming trial was prejudiced by a report in Britain's Sunday Times saying it had ``clear evidence'' Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi directed the 1988 attack which killed 270 people. A panel of three judges at the Scottish High Court in Edinburgh ruled the Sunday Times was not in contempt of court because the trial was taking place before a panel of Scottish judges and not a jury, court officials said.

The Lord Justice Clerk, Lord Cullen, said: "On the information before us we are not satisfied that the article and editorial complained of represents a contempt of court." Lord Cullen, who was sitting with Lords Caplan and Coulsfield, made no order prohibiting future publication which could influence the fairness of the trial which the lawyers for the two accused men had sought.

But in what has been as a warning to the media, he said contempt rulings on any future publications may depend on the content and circumstances of publication. He said: "As matters stand the prospects of the petitioners standing trial before a jury in Scotland appear to us to be extremely remote. "However, in view of what was said at the hearing last week it should not be assumed that circumstances couldn't change in this or any other respect."

The judges' full reasons will be given at a later date.

---

Lawsuit Against Libya Allowed

Newsday, 06-15-1999, pp A22. Washington - The Supreme Court yesterday rejected Libya's attempt to block a lawsuit now pending in federal court in New York seeking billions of dollars in damages for families of the 270 people killed in the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. Without comment, the justices denied Libya's appeal of a ruling last December by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York upholding a 1996 congressional amendment stating that immunity from civil lawsuits is forfeited by any nation designated by the State Department as a sponsor of terrorism.

The lawsuit, filed in federal district court in Brooklyn, names Libya, the Libyan intelligence service, Libya's state-owned airline and two Libyan agents who have been charged with carrying out the attack. The two suspects face a trial before a Scottish court in the Netherlands. It seeks at least $20 million for each victim's estate, millions of dollars for those injured and $3 billion in punitive damages aimed at punishing and deterring Libya.

In its appeal to the Supreme Court, lawyers for Libya said the 1996 amendment was unconstitutional. Justice Department lawyers joined lawyers for explosion victims' families in urging the high court to deny Libya's move for immunity. "Sovereign immunity for foreign states in federal courts is a privilege that under the Constitution may be restricted," government lawyers told the court.

---

Lockerbie trial 'prejudiced'

24/6/1999 * BBC News Lawyers acting for two Libyans accused of the Lockerbie bombing have begun a contempt of court action at the High Court in Edinburgh. Bill Taylor QC said a front page article published by The Sunday Times last month prejudiced the men's forthcoming trial. Mr Taylor said he had three principal objections to the story. "One - the article including the editorial asserts as matter of fact allegations that the Crown will require to prove at the trial," he told the court.

"Two - a fair and dispassionate reader would be left with the feeling that the guilt of these two accused can be taken for granted. "Three - editorial in particular gives rise to the view that the accused may not be convicted not because of their innocence, but because of the passage of time." The Sunday Times, whose editor is in court, says the allegations in the article and editorial are not new and concerned matters of public interest. It adds that the judges who will hear the case are expected to be able to exclude from consideration matters which are not evidence in the case.

In a written reply, the newspaper said: "In these circumstances the publication of the said article and editorial did not create a substantial risk that the course of justice in the proceedings will be impeded or prejudiced." The case involving the two Libyans is "active" and is therefore subject to strict contempt of court laws.

Mr Taylor said he was concerned about further stories which may follow the article's publication and Megrahi would view the court's decision on the story as important to the fairness of his trial. "If the court is to say that neither contempt of court nor common law rules in relation to contempt of court apply then the first petitioner is apprehensive that he can never achieve a fair trial," he told the court. Richard Keen QC, for Fimah, argued that the accused man's chances of a fair trial were also prejudiced by the newspaper.

---

US court rules against Libya in appeal over Pan Am bombing suit

June 14 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday allowed Libya to be sued in federal court in New York City by the families of some of the victims killed in the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. The lawsuit against Libya seeks at least $20 million for each victim's estate, millions of dollars in damages for those injured and $3 billion in punitive damages aimed at punishing and deterring Libya. The case acted on today is Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya vs. Rein, 98-1449.

The nation's highest court rejected without any comment or dissent an appeal by Libya arguing that the lawsuit should be dismissed on the grounds that U.S. courts lack jurisdiction over the case. The civil lawsuit, which seeks damages, was brought by the families of some of the 270 people killed. The lawsuit named Libya, the Libyan intelligence service, Libyan Arab Airlines and two alleged Libyan agents who have been charged with carrying out the attack.

The lawsuit was brought after the Congress in 1996 amended a law and specifically provided U.S. courts with jurisdiction over foreign states for certain acts of terrorism, such as aircraft sabotage. A federal judge in New York and then a U.S. Court of Appeals rejected Libya's arguments that the lawsuit should be dismissed. The appeals court in December upheld the law's constitutionality. (see latest news of that verdict from December 1989 at the OLD NEWS ARCHIVE)

In its appeal, an attorney for Libya and the other defendants said Congress, by passing the 1996 law saying that state sponsors of terrorism can be sued, took the "unprecedented" step of letting the executive branch decide if the federal courts had jurisdiction to hear suits against foreign nations. Officials of the executive branch decide which countries should be designated as state sponsors of terrorism.

"The 1996 amendment has politicized the federal judiciary to an extent unprecedented in the history of the judicial branch since the founding of this republic," attorney Robert Mirone said in the Supreme Court appeal. "In sum, the amendment violates the principle of separation of powers and deprives Libya of its rights to a fair trial by delegating to the executive the power to establish the subject matter jurisdiction of federal courts based on transitory political considerations," he said. Libya also said the appeals court was wrong in declining to review before trial some of its other arguments that the New York court lacks jurisdiction and that the lawsuit fails to state a claim for which relief can be granted.

Clinton administration attorneys told the Supreme Court the the appeal should be denied and dismissed the constitutional claim as "particularly misconceived." They said the law was constitutional as applied in this lawsuit against Libya. Attorneys for the families also urged the Supreme Court to turn down the appeal, saying the earlier ruling was correct and that Libya's substantive argument was "meritless."

Background info: For more on the November 1995-decision and the 1998-outcome, read the waiver Smith vs. Libya, who is the basis for the civil trial.
....and THIS DOC for the full court decicion from the 15th December 1998.

---

US Department of Justice to pay for relatives attendance of trial

27/05/1999

US Senators Frank Lautenberg and Edward Kennedy have succeeded in including a provision in the pending Supplemental Appropriations Bill that will enable the US Department of Justice to pay for the travel expenses of the families of Pan Am 103 who wish to attend the trial in the Netherlands. The prosvision has appearantly the support of the Department of Justice.

Current law prevents the Justice Dept. from using government funds to pay for this travel, and the provision the two senators offered is intended to provide the nescessary authrority.

The Justice Dept. intends to cover transportation costs, lodging and food at government per diem rates for immedeate family members. The Department also plans to set up a website and an 800 number to keep family members informed during the trial. It also plans to establish a compassion center staffed with councelors at the base where the trial will be held.

Further details, as to questions of "how and when" and "how long and how much", will be answered by Bruce Rogers from the office of the Coordinator of Counter-Terrorism in the US State Dept. and by senator Frank Lautenberg himself at an upcoming meeting for relatives at the Newark Marriott Hotel at Newark Airport on the June 4-6 weekend.

---

US Senate urges White House to bar lifting UN sanctions on Libya

WASHINGTON, May 27 (AFP/Reuters) - US President Bill Clinton must use "all diplomatic means" to prevent the United Nations Security Council from lifting sanctions against Libya, the US Senate urged Thursday. "The non-binding resolution urged that president should use all diplomatic means necessary, including the use of the United States veto" to block the sanctions' removal until Libya meets all four original UN conditions, the senate said in a non-binding resolution. By a 98 to zero margin, the senate charged that Libya has failed to cooperate with the investigation of the Lockerbie bombing that caused 270 deaths, failed to renounce and end support for terrorism and failed to pay appropriate compensation for the attack.

``Because the trial has not begun and is expected to last at least several months, it would be premature to conclude that Libya has fulfilled the other remaining conditions,'' said Sen. Edward Kennedy, a Massachusetts Democrat who sponsored the resolution, which was attached to a defense authorization bill passed by the Senate. ``It would be a gross injustice to the Pan Am 103 families, who have suffered so much in this ordeal, to reward Libya for policies it has not fulfilled,'' Kennedy said.

UN Secretary General Kofi Annan is to submit a report by July 4 to the Security Council concerning the lifting of the seven-year-old sanctions, which were suspended on April 5 following the handover by Libya of the two suspects.

Background info: Everything about UN's Lockerbie-embargo against Libya 1992-1999

---

---