ONE of the Libyan concerns which was made clear to Professor Black and
           myself during our visit was the question of the sentence to be imposed in the
           event of a "guilty" verdict being returned against those accused of the
           Lockerbie Pan-Am bombing. Today President Mandela is reported as echoing
           those concerns.
 
           The problem is that officially neither Libya, the lawyers
           for the accused, nor President Mandela, nor even Lord Hardie, are supposed
           to negotiate over this except through the Secretary-General of the United
           Nations.

           One of the most urgent requests we received from the Libyans was to try to
           expedite the issue of American visas, so that the lawyers can conduct
           face-to-face meetings with the Secretary-General's office more easily.

           Make no mistake, in the fraught atmosphere that exists between Libya,
           America, and Britain, discussions involving all of the parties concerned are
           essential if serious misconceptions are not to escalate, instead of being
           resolved.

           Professor Black has produced a plan for expediting discussions without
           actually breaching the veto on face-to-face negotiations over terms of the
           British/ US offer. This we have already sent to the Secretary-General.

           To allow the present real concern about sentencing to derail progress towards
           holding the trial would be a tragedy. The Lord Advocate needs to be able to
           discuss this aspect with the chairman of the defence lawyers, Mr Maghur. If
           the issue seems a serious concern to Mr Maghur (and I have no evidence that
           it does), then it should be addressed by the two lawyers principally
           concerned. The Libyans have repeatedly said that it is up to the defence
           lawyers to decide if they will advise their clients to attend for trial.

           From the sidelines what can the rest of us say about the problem over where
           the sentence should be served? First, it does not exist unless the verdict is one
           of guilty. That would not be known until the end of the trial and the end of the
           appeal process. There are already guarantees, delivered during our visit, that
           the two would remain under the protection of the court in Holland until all
           these processes had been completed.

           Then, since the only possible sentence under Scots law would be life
           imprisonment, the accused would normally be transferred to a Scots prison.

           The Scottish system is not vindictive. I have no doubt that their food,
           religious, and visiting rights would be scrupulously observed.

           There are precedents for the transfer of prisoners out of Scottish jurisdiction
           for humanitarian (such as visits from family) or other reasons and their
           detention would always be subject to the independent Scottish Parole Board.

           Even to discuss these issues publicly is to seem to lean towards a presumption
           of guilt. They are genuine issues of great importance, yet just at present
           Professor Black and myself seem to be almost unique in being trusted by all
           the parties involved. While we are willing to continue to do everything we
           can to help, it is imperative that more direct channels for discussion are
           urgently enabled. That is precisely what Professor Black's scheme, already in
           the hands of the UN Secretary-General, is designed to do.

           Dr Jim Swire,
           Spokesman, UK Families-Flight 103,
           Caspidge House,
           Pikes Lane Pool,
           Bromsgrove, Worcestershire.