The
Guardian articles, reactions of relatives, official reactions from USA,
UK and Libya - read it all here! To listen to sound files, you need Real
Audio Player - shareware. Latest text update usually at the
end of page. Links may be updated all over the page.
LONDON (Reuters) - Britain and the United States have decided two Libyans accused of bombing a Pan Am airliner over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988 can face trial in the Hague under Scottish law, Britain's Guardian newspaper reported on Tuesday.
The paper said Britain's Foreign Secretary Robin Cook and U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright would announce the decision simultaneously in London and Washington in the next few days.
A senior US administration official said the White House and State Department were not prepared to go public with the plan but their hand was forced by an article about it in yesterday's edition of the Guardian, a British paper.
A spokesman for Britain's Foreign Office would not confirm such an announcement is to take place. ``Our policy remains unchanged, and that is Libya must surrender the suspects for trial in Scotland or the U.S.,'' said the spokesman. ``British policy remains that Libya must comply with these binding resolutions.''
British Prime Minister Tony Blair's chief press spokesman denied that any decision had been taken and said there would be ``immense legal, diplomatic and technical complexities'' involved in staging a trial in a third country.
But he added: ``We are willing to explore any option which would bring justice to the families (of the Lockerbie victims). Discussions on such options have been taking place for some time...We will maintain close cooperation with our allies on these options.''
The Guardian said Britain and the United States had reached agreement on the issue earlier this month, but had been unable to announce it until a new government had been installed in the Netherlands, whose approval is needed for the trial to go ahead.
In Washington, a State
Department official said ``Libya must comply with the U.N. Security
Council resolution and must surrender the two suspects for trial before
a U.S. or Scottish court.'' ``It
has been nearly 10 years since Pan Am flight 103 exploded over Lockerbie.
The victims and their families have already
waited too long for justice,'' the official said.
Pressed on the possibility of having the trial in The Hague under Scottish law, the official said ``We continue to look for ways to achieve our objective of Libyan compliance with the U.N. Security Council resolution.'' He gave no further details, saying he could not elaborate.
Libya has said it would hand over
the suspects if a trial was held in a neutral venue by an international
panel of judges. Britain and the United States insist on a trial in one
of their countries.
Reactions from victims' relatives
Jim
Swire, whose daughter Flora died in the attack and who
has lobbied for the men to be tried in a neutral venue,
said it was time to break the impasse. ``Of course,
I would be delighted if the Guardian report is true,''
he said. ``Common sense dictates that something has
to be done.''
``I'd be over the moon because this
is something we've been pressing for for a number of years,'' Swire told
BBC radio.
Bert Ammerman, 51, of River Vale, N.J., who lost his younger brother Tom in the Dec. 21, 1988, disaster, said the Guardian report, if true, is what he has advocated for the past four years.
``We're calling Gadhafi's bluff. Now it's back in his court and he's the one being squeezed,'' said Ammerman, principal of Northern Valley Regional High School at Demarest, N.J.
However, some families will oppose
the decision, he said.
Albright stressed ``they are worried about us,'' said Susan Cohen, of Cape May Courthouse, N.J., whose daughter, Theodora, 20, died in the attack. Berger said this ``might be a way to call Gadhafi's bluff,'' Ms. Cohen said in an interview.
Susan Cohen, who also spent more
than half an hour on the phone with Albright and Berger, said it was ``a
black letter day'' for her family.
``It's just a fright. They
have lied to us so I don't see why I should believe anything they say ...
This idea opens a Pandora's box and they just want to dump the sanctions,''
she told Reuters by telephone.
``My reaction is this is really appalling,'' Ms. Cohen said. ``Why would Gadhafi agree to anything unless it is in his interest?'' she said. ``He will manipulate the situation to his interest.''
She called the American position
``the usual whitewash.'' For years, she said, ``they have given us all
their reasons why an international trial will threaten American justice,
and now it looks good to them. It's a collapse.''
``Overall I was favourable,'' said Paul Hudson of Albany, New York. ``We wrote to the president last year and asked for an international trial and we were glad to see that's moving forward.''
``The majority of the group, including myself, feels strongly that this is an excellent suggestion, that it is time that we moved on because world opinion has shifted a little bit to Gaddafi,'' added Jack Schultz of Ridgefield, Connecticut.
Schultz, chairman of a group called
Victims of PanAm Flight 103, said some opponents were implacable. ``There
were two or three women who I think would object to anything,'' he said.
Victims' relatives informed by US officials by phone
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright Albright and Sandy Berger, the national security assistant to President Clinton, arranged, meanwhile, to telephone members of the families of the victims to inform them of developments.
The State Department spokesman, James P. Rubin, reiterated that Libya must submit the suspects to U.S. or Scottish courts. ``It's been 10 years,'' he said. ``The victims and their families have been waiting too long for justice.''
``We have been exploring alternative ways to bring the suspects to justice,'' Rubin said. ``So far, we haven't found any practical alternatives to a trial in the United States or Scotland. ``The bottom line is the heinous nature of this crime requires the standards that only the United States or British justice systems can provide,'' he said.
"They told us they were exploring options that would lead to a Scottish, not an international trial, with Scottish judges and Scottish law, in another country," said Rosemary Wolf, speaking after a conference call with Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and National Security Adviser Sandy Berger.
"They are talking to the Dutch to discuss conditions for a Scottish court sitting in the Netherlands, but there has been no resolution of this and I had the impression they are not convinced this is workable," she told Reuters by telephone.
"They say 'It's almost 10 years now and enforcing the sanctions has become difficult so we have to find more positive ways to find a solution'," Wolf said.
The reaction among the relatives of the Lockerbie families was mixed, she said. "Many of us feel that this is a betrayal. It won't bring justice any closer. Some thought it might be a good idea, others believed it was bound to fail."
Wolf, who lost her stepdaughter Miriam in the explosion, said Albright and Berger did not seem to have high hopes that a Scottish court really could sit in the Netherlands.
``I had the impression they are not convinced this is workable and would result in a fair trial. Their attorneys aren't sure of that yet,'' she said.
``It could be a long time before all the nuts and bolts are worked out. It could even need special legislation in Britain and the Netherlands. Then there are questions about who would take custody of the suspects and incarcerate them. The complications are just immeasurable,'' she added.
In the US, a lawyer representing families of American victims of the bombing has urged his clients to support the US proposal to try the suspects in a third country.
Lee Kreindler said: "I think some of the family members should think about it."
But families themselves had mixed reactions. Peter Lowenstein, who lost his 21-year-old son Alexander in the attack, said the proposal was "an excellent idea".
Legal problems
``Experience teaches us not to believe everything we read in the papers, but certainly if this is correct it's a major step forward and it's a step forward which my clients, I know, will welcome,'' Alistair Duff told BBC radio. Duff is the Scottish lawyer in defense of the two Libyan citizens.
One suggestion, put forward by Scottish professor Robert Black in 1994, would involve the case being heard in a neutral country without a jury by an international panel of judges headed by a Scottish judge.
Contacted on sabbatical in South Africa, Professor Black said he was "absolutely delighted" by the unconfirmed reports. "It is the sensible thing to do. If this is right it will be a triumph for common sense," he added.
Duff said such a proposal would be broadly acceptable as long as safeguards were built in to give the defense proper access to the prosecution's evidence. But he added: ``I suspect that a trial would still be some distance off in order to allow the defense proper time to prepare.''
Libya has suggested in the past that it would accept such a proposal, and Stephen Miller, another lawyer for the two Libyan suspects, gave it a cautious welcome.
He said that the broad outline of
the proposal was acceptable as long as the safety of the suspects was assured
and there was a guarantee they would not be extradited from the host country.
There is also the issue of security for the two Libyans. Would they be extradited to the Netherlands or any other state for participation in a criminal trial, their safety would have to be guaranteed by all parties. The US has a history of abducting foreign suspects and bringing them for trial in their own country, in contempt of international law. The best known case is the abduction of Panama's former dictator and ex-CIA employee General Manuel Noriega.
Is it possible that the US
has changed their minds in regard to the question of venue
in order to prepare for an
abduction and force the two Libyan suspects for trial in the
USA ?
In any case, Libya will not extradite
their citizens without the assurance of their safety.
From the recent archives:
Clinton prepares for trial
President Bill Clinton portrayed the latest endeavour as an extension of the old, saying both aimed at bringing the perpetrators of the bombing that killed 270 people to justice.
``There may be some possibility of
standing up a Scottish court in another country but there are lots of difficulties
with it as well apparently,'' he said. ``It's been a long time now since
that terrible day when Pan Am 103 crashed over Lockerbie and we're looking
at it but I don't know that it can be done,'' he added.
"I have personally been engaged in this for years, trying to find a way to get the suspects out of Libya, into a court where we thought an honest and fair and adequate trial could occur," he added. "And in a case like this, like every other case, as the years go by you run more and more chances that something will happen to the evidence that is available, to any witnesses that might be available. So we've had a sense of urgency about this for some time."
Sen. Frank Lautenberg, a New Jersey Democrat, said he also had ``very serious reservations about reversing U.S. government policy'' and Washington should insist any agreement that allowed a trial in a third country ``must be ironclad.''
``I am concerned
that Gaddafi will try to gut the trial process, and we must have absolute
assurances that this will not happen, should be considering changing venue,''
he said in a statement late Tuesday.
British officials still undecided upon new issue
Britain resisted the plan Tuesday, saying it still wanted the men to stand trial in Scotland or the United States.
During a late-night debate in parliament, Foreign Office junior minister Tony Lloyd said the idea of a third-country trial faced legal, diplomatic and political complexities.
Lloyd's comments suggested the two governments were out of step in their approach to the issue and raised speculation that Britain was resisting pressure from Washington to change tack.
Henry McLeish, the Scottish home affairs minister, gave the strongest indications that the third country option was actively being considered when he said yesterday: "It is no secret that the minister has close contact with his American counterpart ; the options have always been explored, nothing has ever been ruled out.
"A prudent government would
not wish to rule out any options because we are dealing with an act of
mass murder. We owe it to the families to bring those responsible to justice.
That is the key objective."
Dutch government has been contacted
Despite Britain's insistence its stance has not changed, along with the US it has contacted the Dutch Government to explore the possibility of a trial in The Hague, according to a Dutch Government spokeswoman.
"The United States and the United Kingdom have, on their own initiative, launched exploratory contacts with the Dutch Government over holding the trial in the Netherlands," Brigitte Tazelaar said.
"The questions centred on how such
a trial could be held and carried out," she added.
She refused to indicate when the
talks took place, saying only that they had been contacted "some time ago".
Editorial
from THE SCOTSMAN 22/07/1998:
Lockerbie trial proposal is right
THE Government is sending contradictory messages over Lockerbie.
While stating that their policy has not changed, ministers are dropping
the strongest possible hints that, in fact, they are preparing to perform
an entirely sensible U-turn. A trial of the two Libyan accused may now
take place under Scottish law in the neutral venue of The Hague. That is
surely what Henry McLeish meant yesterday when he told the Commons the
Government is "willing to explore any option that will bring justice
to the families". It is certainly the message emerging from the US
State Department and National Security Council.
If, as now seems inevitable, ministers in London and Washington do formally announce their support for such a trial after nearly a decade of relentless insistence that only a Scottish or American venue is appropriate, they should feel no embarrassment. No matter what the conspiracy theorists believe, the obstruction to justice in the Lockerbie case has been Colonel Gaddafi, not a high-level cover-up in Britain and the United States.
A trial in The Hague has much to commend it. The principal advantage is that it would call the Libyan leader's bluff. The Arab League has supported the idea. Gaddafi has said he would accept it. He will have no excuse for stalling.
Less certain is whether a trial of Abdel Basset al-Megrahi and Al Amin Khalifah Fhimah can draw a definitive line under the Lockerbie saga. Despite the exhaustive efforts of the Dumfries and Galloway police there can be no certainty that the two will be convicted. Even if their guilt is proven, the presentation of the case against them is certain to raise other questions. These are likely to include diplomatically inconvenient allegations about Iranian involvement in the planning and commissioning of the atrocity.
The conspiracists have long insisted that the trial has been deliberately obstructed precisely because intelligence agencies on both sides of the Atlantic, and in the Middle East too, knew very soon after the bombing that it had been ordered by the Islamic Revolutionary authorities in Iran, not by Libya.
The two theories are not incompatible. It is entirely conceivable that Iran sponsored the Lockerbie attack and Libya conducted it. Tehran swore to seek revenge for the accidental destruction of its own civilian airliner by a missile fired by the United States battleship Vincennes. That tragedy occurred only months before Lockerbie and excites at least as much fury in the Arab world as Lockerbie does in the west.
There are good reasons to believe that Iran spent the last months of 1988 actively encouraging a significant act of terrorism against a US target. Certainly elements within the regime celebrated the destruction of Pan Am flight 103. There are well-researched suggestions that agents linked to Tehran may even have financed the attack.
None of this means that the Libyan connection is a fabrication. It does mean that the rigour of a trial might extract information and allegations which will widen rather than end the Lockerbie inquiry. At a time when both the United States and the European Union are seeking to mend relations with Iran that could prove profoundly uncomfortable. But fairness to the families of the victims demands that the whole truth be told. The Iranian regime of 1998 is much more tolerant and civilised than its predecessor of 1988.
A trial at The Hague will be complicated to arrange but entirely
fair. The Government should endorse the proposal openly and promise to
investigate fully any new information which may emerge in court.
Dr. Jim Swire angry at UK government
The father of one of the British victims of the Lockerbie bombing has attacked the UK Government for stalling on a compromise over the trial of two Libyan suspects.
The criticism came as a spokesman for UK Prime Minister Tony Blair confirmed that he had held talks with US President Bill Clinton "several times" over the issue.
UK Foreign Office minister Tony Lloyd has reaffirmed his government's refusal to hold a trial outside the US or Scotland, over which the Pan Am jet exploded in 1988 killing 270 people in the air and on the ground. Mr Lloyd's statement, when a compromise had looked likely, has angered UK relatives of the victims, who think Britain should follow America's lead.
Dr Jim Swire said: "I think America's
is the voice that really matters in this.
"I can't understand why the
British Government now should be harking back to arguments that have been
put out to us over the past six years if America, who is the power in this,
is prepared to consider some kind of compromise."
He welcomed the American proposals
to try the men under Scottish law in a neutral
country, but said he had been unable
to get any information from the Foreign Office about the reported developments.
He earlier said he did not
think the government had changed its stance at all.
He added: "If the US is doing this,
it is fantastic. It brings a new dimension to this, but the question is
if America is going to offer what Libya promised it would accept."
UK's Tony Blair now ready for trial
UK Prime Minister Tony Blair has agreed to work for a compromise over the delayed trial of two Libyans suspected of the Lockerbie bombing.
Mr Blair joined US President Bill Clinton in softening his line on holding the trial in a third country. The Question Time announcement appeared to contradict a statement by Foreign Office minister Tony Lloyd on Tuesday.
Mr Blair told the Commons: "It has been our wish that the trial take place in Scotland or the US and I reject claims that there should be any difficulty about a fair trial in Scotland.
"As the result of no progress having being made, however, we are prepared to look at alternative ways of giving families the justice they deserve.
"That is why we launched discussions with the US and the Dutch about the possibility of a trial in a third country. "However, there are many legal and other complexities to be overcome before we can be sure that this is the right way to proceed, and until those issues are resolved no final decision can be made."
He added: "We've got to be sure,
however, that any solution we come up is fully consistent with our absolute
commitment to the integrity of the Scottish judicial system."
International community content with the change
The international community has welcomed a move by the United States and Britain to consider holding the trial of two Libyans accused of the 1988 Lockerbie bombing at a neutral trial venue.
French reaction:
The French Government said it would
welcome any move that would lead to justice for the relatives of those
who died in the bombing.
"We believe that any proposal likely to lead to a trial so that the victims' relatives can find out the truth and obtain the compensation owed them deserves to be looked into," Foreign ministry spokesman Yves Doutriaux was quoted as saying.
South African reaction:
South Africa's foreign department
said it was hopeful that the trial of two Libyans suspected of the bombing
could "at last take place", enabling relatives of victims of the blast
to derive comfort from the due legal process.
Arab League reaction:
The proposal also won support from
the 22-member Arab League which has staunchly backed Libya's request that
the trial be held outside the US or Britain to ensure fair proceedings.
"The Arab League sees in this new
American and British position an important step on the road to solving
peacefully the conflict in a way to preserve Libyan sovereignty and guarantee
a fair trial to the suspects," a spokesman was reported as saying.
Arab newsppaper about the new Lockerbie stand:
"This climbdown is the beginning
of the countdown to the end of this period of US and Israeli injustice
and the end of the White House's complete domination of the United Nations
and international law and its method of molding UN resolutions so as to
take revenge on all the states that uphold the issues of rights and liberation
in the world, including Libya and Iraq."
Libyan lawyer says his clients are ready for trial
The
Libyan lawyer of the two Libyan suspects wanted in the Lockerbie bombing
said on Thursday he would accept U.S. and British proposals for a trial
in the Hague under Scottish law and that his clients were ready for that.
``It is natural that we accept (a trial in The Hague under Scottish law) if the conditions for a fair trial are provided to protect the two accuseds rights before, during and after the trial,'' Ibrahim Legwell, head of the defence team, told Reuters in an interview.
He insisted that guarantees of a fair trial were required and that U.N. sanctions imposed on Libya since 1992 over Lockerbie must be suspended as soon as the Libyan government guarantees the two will stand trial in a neutral country.
``If the two states (the U.S. and Britain) accept a trial in a neutral country, it would be natural that the sanctions imposed on Libya will be immediately suspended once Libya, in a protocol to be signed, guarantees the arrival of the two to the trial's venue,'' Legwell added, speaking by telephone from Tripoli.
Asked whether the two suspects, Abdel Baset Ali Mohamed al-Megrahi and Al-Amin Khalifa Fhimah were ready to stand trial in a neutral country, Legwell said: `` Since 1992, we had been explaining to them that was the best solution possible, and they are naturally convinced of that.''
He said that Libya's highest authority, the General People's Congress, had affirmed since 1992 that only Libyan courts were entitled to try Libyan citizens but as an exception authorized the two to decide ``voluntarily'' to stand trial in a neutral country.
``It wouldn't be a hand over, but a voluntary presence under a total conviction of the defense team that the trial would be fair,'' he said.
Legwell outlined the conditions for a fair trial he said had been set up by Scottish lawyer Robert Black. These conditions included the establishment of an international panel of judges to be agreed upon and presided over by a senior Scottish judge. The court would operate under the criminal law and procedures of Scotland.
He said other conditions included the guaranteed safety of the two. Questioning would only be carried out by judges and in the presence of the defense team which would also select the translating team.
``No other people except the judges and the defense would be allowed to communicate with them to avoid any pressure. The two would also have their doctor, their food, would have the possibility of communicating with their families and of carrying out their religious duties,'' he said.
``For years we had been proposing a trial in a neutral venue, that would have ended the suffering of the victims' families, and the suffering of my two clients and the Libyan people,'' he added.
``I hope this (U.S. and British)
move was not a political maneuver to bypass the Organization of African
Unity (OAU) decisions and those expected at the Non-Aligned Summit in South
Africa,'' he said.
US, UK to announce acceptance of Lockerbie settlement Tuesday
according to THE GUARDIAN 25/07/1998
The British daily the Guardian on Friday reported that UK Foreign Secretary Robin Cook will announce on Tuesday Britain's decision to accept the trial of the two Libyans suspected to be involved in explosion of a US passenger plane over Lockerbie in Scotland in 1988, according to the Scottish law at The Hague in the Netherlands.
The paper said that Cook will make his announcement in a speech he will read before the UK House of Commons next Tuesday to put an end to ten years of conflict with Libya.
The report added that the British government is confident in the possibility of resolving technical issues with the Dutch government on the trial which arose because the proceedings are to be carried out according to the Scottish judicial system.
The report stated that a similar announcement will be made simultaneously by US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright in Washington.
....but the Tuesday came and went,
and nothing was declared nor made public.
Libya vetoes Scots judges for Lockerbie trial (26/7)
Libya will never accept British and American plans to try the two Lockerbie suspects in the Netherlands unless Tony Blair and Bill Clinton drop their insistence that all the judges are Scottish, The Observer can reveal.
London and Washington say Colonel Gadaffi must surrender the two men to a court with five Scottish judges, but Tripoli insists only a panel of international judges will guarantee a fair trial. One senior figure close to the Libyan regime said Scottish judges 'lack cultural objectivity'.
Tripoli has agreed to allow one senior Scottish judge, appointed by Britain and the US, to head the bench, but insists that all or most of the other members come from other countries. A senior figure close to Gadaffi told The Observer yesterday: 'Libya agrees to a trial in a third country, but it must be fair.
'We accept a Scottish chairman and Scottish legal procedure, but we do not believe it would be fair if all the judges came from the country where the crime took place. Would two Scots accused of mass murder in Libya agree to appear before an all-Libyan bench?'
Among other conditions, Tripoli will demand an immediate end to trade and travel sanctions imposed by the UN Security Council, safe passage for the suspects to and from Holland, guarantees that the two men will be held alone in secure conditions and assurances that they will not be interrogated about other alleged terrorist crimes.
A Foreign Office spokesman expressed frustration at Tripoli's stance and said five Scottish judges were needed 'to preserve the principle that the accused are being tried in a Scottish court in line with UN resolutions'.
British officials hope that, if Libya refuses to surrender the suspects, other Arab leaders will put pressure on Tripoli to accept the deal.
One senior Minister said: 'Libya has said in the past that it would accept a trial in a neutral country. If they decline now, they will have to eat a huge number of their own words and risk the wrath of other Arab states.'
Jim Swire, spokesman for the British relatives of the 270 people who died when Pan Am Flight 103 was destroyed by a terrorist bomb, said he was disappointed by the latest development but delighted that a 'third country' trial was on the agenda.
'The issue of the judges is going to delay a trial, which is regrettable, but I am relieved and delighted that after so many years of stalemate there is a real prospect of a trial which will resolve the issue of Libyan complicity.'
Dr Swire contradicted government
officials by pointing out that Libya had agreed to a neutral country trial,
but only in front of a panel of international judges.The idea was put forward
by Professor Robert Black, a Lockerbie-born Edinburgh University law professor.
Experts discussing possible trial
British and American legal experts say that any trial held in The Hague, Netherlands, under Scottish law might well include a panel of judges rather than a jury. But they say international judges are not part of the package.
Nowhere in Libya's many official statements and written letters to the United Nations or in U.N. Security Council resolutions or in British law is there a mention of such a panel, whose selection could politicize a trial, they say.
The two Libyan suspects were indicted in both the United States and Britain for allegedly planting a bomb aboard the airliner that blew up over Lockerbie, Scotland, in December 1998, killing 270 people in the air and on the ground.
A U.N. Security Council resolution, adopted by a slim majority in April 1992, imposed a flight and arms ban on Libya and a downgrading of diplomatic ties unless Tripoli surrendered the suspects for trial in Britain or the United States. Legal experts have critizised the UN resolution for being illegal and obstructing the general rules of international criminal law.
These sanctions were tightened in
1993 with the addition of a freeze on some Libyan assets abroad and a ban
on some types of equipment used in oil terminals and refineries.
``The Security Council resolution
is clear,'' U.S. State Department spokesman James
Rubin said recently.
``If the Scottish authorities are
satisfied that the Scottish court system and procedures can be replicated
in a geographically different location, then the quality of justice will
remain and the Security Council resolution requirements could in theory
be implemented,'' he said.
``But anything short of that, such as an idea of international judges, is not what the Security Council resolution said. This is not a negotiation,'' Rubin added. The concept of the international panel was first voiced in 1994 by Robert Black, a law professor at Edinburgh University.
Black this past April accompanied Jim Swire, a spokesman for the British families of the crash victims, to Cairo and then to Tripoli to meet Libyan leader Muammar Gadaffi and Ibrahim Legwell, the lawyer for the accused, Abdel Baset Ali Mohammed al-Megrahi and Al-Amin Khalifa Fhimah.
Legwell at the time said all concerned agreed that the suspects should stand trial in a``neutral country'' in a court ``established with an international panel of judges to be agreed upon and presided over by a senior Scottish judge.'' Both Legwell and Black repeated this proposal this month.
Should the lawyers and Libya insist on this panel, the United States and Britain would be in a position to refuse and blame Libya for not honouring its own proposals. The aim, some diplomats believe, would be to shore up support among Libya's neighbours, who have made a decision to defy the sanctions. Many other developing countries are sympathetic to Libya's position and may follow.
The Organisation of African Unity in June resolved not to comply with the flight ban when OAU business was involved. And it also decided not to comply with any of the other sanctions, starting in September, unless the suspects could be tried in a third country.
Gadaffi in early 1994 suggested a trial in The Hague, seat of the International Court of Justice, saying the two suspects could not get a fair trial in Britain or the United States. The International Court of Justice, however, hears disputes between states rather than criminal cases against individuals.
The proposal was pursued by the Arab League, which then came up what has been known as the ``three options'' to break the impasse. By the end of 1997 the Organisation of African Unity and the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) had endorsed the options.
They are: that the suspects be tried in a third and neutral country or that the suspects be tried by Scottish judges at the International Court of Justice (ICC) in The Hague in accordance with Scottish law or that a special tribunal be established at the ICC in accordance with Scottish law.
But Britain and the United States, until mid-July repeatedly rejected them. Now that they are considering the proposals, diplomats said both countries would hold Libya to its public, official statement, without deviation.
The key letter probably would be the one Libya sent to the United Nations on Jan. 8 when Foreign Minister, Omar Mustafa al-Montasser, said his country ``accepted the proposal of the League of Arab States that the two suspects should be tried by a court in a neutral country and then the League's proposal ...that they should be tried at the Hague by Scottish judges and in accordance with Scottish law.''
According to Rubin, any deal ``is
a take-it-or-leave-it package that puts a Scottish court in a third country
and presents that to the United Nations. And I'm sure we'll find out very
quickly whether the Libyans are going to put their money where their mouth
is or whether they are bluffing.''
The question of the Scottish panel of judges
In the recent weeks there has been much discussion of what an upcoming trial would look like. At present (22/8/98) there has been no official release regarding the legal procedures yet. Dr. Robert Black, the Scottish law expert, who outlined the idea of such a trial and discussed it with Libya last and this year, has received no official response from the UK and the USA yet, as well. (Dr. Blacks outline)
In the UK hopes raise and fall as
the discussions on the legal outline for a possible trial find their way
to the media.
Article from THE SCOTSMAN August, 21st 1998
UK and US finally to make announcement ?
Monday the 24th August 1998 main papers both in the USA and in the UK had these stories of a possible common official announcement:
U.S. agrees to Lockerbie trial abroad: LA Times
(24/08/1998)
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Clinton
administration has agreed to to allow two Libyans charged with the 1988
bombing of a Pan American airliner over Lockerbie, Scotland to be tried
in the Netherlands under Scottish law, the Los Angeles
Times reported in Monday's editions.
The Times said U.S. officials confirmed Sunday that the agreement called for Abdel Basset Ali Megrahi and Lamen Khalifa Fhimah -- allegedly Libyan intelligence agents -- to be tried by a panel of Scottish judges at the headquarters of the Dutch government.
Relatives of victims of the bombing said they had been notified informally by State Department officials that Secretary of State Madeleine Albright would call them with the news Monday. Susan Cohen, who lost her daughter, Theodora, in the Lockerbie bombing said Albright was widely expected by family members to announce that a deal had been reached.
The US State Department had no comment on the conference call, which the families said was due to occur sometime between 9 a.m. and 10 a.m. EDT.
UK, US to agree to
Hague Lockerbie trial - British paper
LONDON (Reuters) - Britain and the United States will announce shortly that they have agreed to allow two Libyan suspects in the Lockerbie case to be tried in the Netherlands under Scottish law, The Daily Telegraph reported on Monday.
The newspaper said the decision would be announced this week by Lord Hardie, Scotland's Lord Advocate. It said Lord Hardie was persuaded by the Foreign Office and the U.S. State Department that a ``neutral'' trial was the only way to bring the two Libyans to court.
It said the proposal -- which reverses seven years of insistence that the hearing should be in Scotland -- was unlikely to be accepted by lawyers of the two Libyans who had demanded the trial be held before international judges.
There was no immediate comment on the Daily Telegraph report from the Foreign Office or State Department but reports from the United States said relatives of victims of the 1988 bombing of the Pan Am airliner had heard that such an announcement was imminent. They said they had been notified informally by U.S. State Department officials that U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright would call them with the news on Monday.
Immediate reactions and thoughts
Quoting unnamed U.S. officials and
some family members, the newspaper said the plan calls for Abdel Basset
Ali Megrahi and Lamen Khalifa Fhimah to be tried by a panel of Scottish
judges under Scottish law at the headquarters of the Dutch government.
``The goal is to see if we can't
resolve this long overdue and outstanding case and bring these two men
to justice,'' an unidentified U.S. official said. ``This is a
chance to move forward.''
``It's appalling,'' said Susan Cohen, whose daughter Theodora died in the attack. ``It's a desecration. It's the one thing that the U.S. government said it would never do." The new proposal has exacerbated long-standing splits in the ranks of victims' families. Some have endorsed it is as a possible way to obtain long-delayed justice in the case. Others, such as Susan Cohen, of Cape May Court House, N.J., have vigorously opposed it as a capitulation to Libyan intransigence.
``What does it say about the integrity of the American legal system when a terrorist takes the line that he can't get a fair trial in America and wants it in a neutral country -- and we agree to hold a trial somewhere else? Why should a terrorist have a right to decide where he is tried?''
Maybe her last question could be a direct answer: Libya opposes a trial in the US or UK, simply because the media there has already marked the two Libyans by calling them "terrorists" and sometimes even forgotten, that the two are innocent, until proven guilty in a court of law.
Dr Jim Swire, spokesman for the campaigning group UK Families of Flight 103, said he was "euphoric" that the prospects of a trial appeared to be improving.
"We are now full of optimism that a trial is going to happen," said Dr Swire. Dr Swire said he did not believe that the difference of approach on the judging panel would prevent a trial taking place.
"We believe that the gap between the (Libyan) offer and the position now being taken by Britain and America is so small, that it's something we shouldn't push our noses into, but rather we should just let the diplomats and lawyers get on with sorting out the details," he said.
UK and US agree on Lockerbie-trial in the Netherlands!
24/8/1998 The UK and US governments have agreed on the terms for a trial of two Libyans suspected of the bombing of an American airliner over Lockerbie in Scotland 10 years ago.They have jointly chosen what has been referred to as the "third country option", under which the Libyans would be tried in the Netherlands under Scottish law. The UK Prime Minister's official spokesman said: "The position of the government the whole way through is that we don't see any impediment in Scottish law and won't accept any criticisms of it by the Libyans or anyone else. "But it is incumbent on the government to do whatever it can to bring those people to trial.
"That is something the families, not least, have impressed on us." He
stressed that whatever was announced was not a framework for negotiation,
but had been deemed the best way to bring the suspects to trial. US Secretary
of State, Madeleine Albright, made similar comments in a televised news
conference shortly after British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook and Scotland’s
chief law officer, Lord Advocate Lord Hardie, made the announcement of
the trial plan in a statement released in London.