"Presented by:
The Libyan Delegation to the 58th Ordinary Session of the Council of Ministers of the Organization of African Unity"

The Grand Jury of the Columbia District Court. On the 14/11/1991, issued inditement accusing two Libyan citizens of placing explosives on boar Pan Am Flight No. 103. These explosives destroyed the plane while it flew over the city of Lockerbie in Scotland. The Attorney General of Scotland issued on that date orders for the arrest of two Libyans accusing them og being involved in the destruction of that plane.

Both the United States of America And the United Kingdom submitted demands to the Libyan Jamahiriya which consisted of the following:

1)  The handing over for trial of the two persons accused, and the acceptance of full responsibility for acts carried out by the Libyan officials.
2)  Disclosure of all known evidence concerning this crime.
3)  To pay adequate compensation.

The United Nations Security Council on the 20/01/1992 adopted resolution No. 731/1992, calling on Libya to cooperate in the implementation of the provisions of that resolution and to commit itself to renounce and condemn terrorism.

However, this resolution did not oblige Libya to hand over the suspects. On the other hand, the Libyan Jamahiriya expressed its acceptance to consider that resolution and also offered different forms of co-operation in that regard.

Furthermore, and even prior to the adoption of that resolution, it had already taken certain measures by which a solution of the crisis should be achieved with respect for the National.

Sovereignty and also within the scope of relevant legislation and the normal procedures practiced by competent national tribunals, which is consistent with the agreed principles of International Law and covenants.

It is to be noted that among the most important measures which have been taken, was that of appointing a Libyan judge to carry out an investigation. The judge proceeded then to undertake prelimenary measures, calling for the co-operation of the competent investigation authorities in the countries concerned. He also got in contact with both the British and United States judges on the case and proposed to them either they come over to carry out investigation with the suspects, or he could go himself over to them in their respective countries.

However, neither of these submitted proposals by the Libyan judge for investigation did receive an answer nor even response from the British and United States judges for investigation, but rather they approved of participation in an investigation or accepted to convene an international investigation. This was expressed inspite of the resolved position taken by the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, rejecting all demands to hand over the suspects and also rejecting the principle of putting on trial its citizens on its own territory to the provisions of its national law and also contrary to the principles of International Comparative Law.

A further step was also taken by the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya consistent with one of the provisions adopted by the Montreal Convention of 1971 calling on States concerning to resort to International Arbitration to settle the crisis. This appeal was rejected.

In face of such a rejection expressed by the United States and the United Kingdom concerning this legal and political approach by which Libya strived to pave the way to solve the problem through co-operation, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya had no other option but to resort to the International Court of Justice in its dispute with the United States and the United Kingdom concerning the interpretation and the implementation of the provision of the Montreal Convention of 1971.

However, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya did not confine itself soleley to a legal approach to the crisis but took other political initiatives. Similar efforts were also undertaken by other States in the region and organizations such as: the Arab League, the O.A.U., the Islamic Conference, the Non-Aligned Movement and the Council of the Union of Arab Maghrib.

Thsese efforts were aimed at achieving a political and legal solution which would respond to the Security Council Resolution no. 731/1992 as follows:

1)  Acceptance of the International Arbitration body.
2)  The Arab league shall continue efforts to bring closer to each other the views of the parties to the crisis and shall propose for investigation and trial a neutral country, ex: (one of the Arab countries).
3)  To submit the offer received from a third party State to hold the trial of the suspects on its territory, i.e. Malta, Austria and Egypt.

Political contacts between the parties concerned facused on the last offer as being one that would provide "an acceptance of a fair and impartial trial", with legal safeguards that would provide for an adequate environment for a political resolution of the crisis.

Libya, by taking these initiatives and in co-operation with other States and organisations in the region, aimed at the following:

1)  Establishing appropriate conditions for a comprehensive settlement which would put an end to the on-going dispute with the United States and United Kingdom within the framework of national sovereignty and according to the rules of the comparative international law.
2)  To assist the United Nations Security Council to take nescessary steps to rescind Resolution No. 748/1992 of the 30/03/1992, since Libya has responded to the requirement stipulated in Resolution 731/1992 and has therefore invalidated and rendered useless the adoption of a similar Resolution as is the case with Resolution 748/1992.

Furthermore, noting that the most salient point in that afore mentioned Resolution is the obligation to submit a legal dispute concerning a conflict arising between national juridical systems and legislation of the parties concerned to the provisions contrained in Chapter seven of the Charter. This is as if such a solely legal dispute would have eventually threatened international peace and security and consequently all mechanisms provided for in Chapter seven of the Charter would have be put into force.

Furthermore, it was noticed that certain parties concerned with the crisis strated to spread unfounded allegations to the effect that the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya did not take the specific required steps to implement Resolution no.731/1992. These are allegations refuted by the following facts:

First:
Libya officially declared its condemnation of terrorism and expressed its readyness to contribute in any international efforts to eliminate terrorism and deal with its causes.
Second:
Libya has informed the United Nations Secretary General of the welcome it extens to receive a United Nations committee or any International neutral committee to investigate and ascertain the non existance of camps on its terrirtory alledged to be used for training of terrorists or the presence on its terrirtory of present suspects of carrying out such action.
Third:
Libys has closed its frontiers and all access to its territory to suspected elements who may be carrying out terrorist action. Furthermore, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, while bound to its commitment to such a position, awaits the establishment of a UN-fact-finding mission.

Follwing an initiave undertaken by Libya, the UN General Secretariat arranged for a meeting to be held between Libya and the British authorities concerned at the UN European Headquarters in geneva on the 9.6.1992. This meeting was followed by 2 other meetings which took place in Cairo on the 9.7.1992 and the 6.8.1992 respectively.

The aim of those meetings was to establish cooperation between the two countries. The British officials confirmed the fukll and positive cooperation whixh took place between them and the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya. Hence, according to what is mentioned above, it appears that the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya has undertaken, contrary to what was alleged by the parties concerned, the implementation of all provisions included in the United Nations Security Council Resolution no. 731/1992 in a practical and concrete manner, particularly with regard to renouncing terrorism and also in full cooperation with the demands to the 3 western countries. Therefore, it appears from the afore mentioned briefing and the direction taken by the political and legal crisis that the only question remaining to be settled is that of the venue of the trial and is related to the legal problem of that venue.

The handing over of suspects cannot be accepted, as we have already mentioned, according to Libyan national legislation and furthermore it is not consistent with other international conventions and its treaties. Morover, the question of a trial is regulated by the provisions of the Montreal Convention of 1971 which are of a binding nature to all its parties to the crisis in their capacities as stated signatories of that convention.

It is noticed that the focus of the crisis is mainly directed to the political aspect while some parties maintain that the issue has become of a political nature. This eventually took place when western countries resorted to the United Nations Security Council and used the resolutions and mechanisms of the council to penalize and boycott, while relying strongly on their weight in that international body. This led to the weakening of the legal aspect of the subject matter. Such an aspect requires a compromise solution. This led ultimately to the submission by the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya of a proposal for holding a trial for the suspects in a third neutral country to be agreed upon by all.

Furthermore, the Jamahiriya has consented to carry out negotiations with these states in order to settle the question of the trial venue since the Jamahiriya has supported the principle of holding such a trial.

Moreover, it firmly insists on holding such a trial although the parties concerned have not responded positively to that proposal consisting of focusing solely on the question of the trial venue.

Hence, the question concerning the principle of holding a trial is no longer a valid point of divergence nor is it a reason for further argument.

The Libyan Arab Jamahiriya does not question the integrety of the British nor the American Judiciary. However, it does not doubt the integrety, neutrality and objectivity of the conditions that should be provided for any just trial. This is the more true if we take into consideration the dubious and ill-intertioned publicity campaign that has accompanied the case where the suspects have been condemned by these authorities and the media in their countries concerned with the crisis, even before hearing their statements or the termination of their interrogation and trial before a tribunal.

These conditions negate any possibility for providing a neutral and impartial atmosphere within which such a trial can take place, particularly since the American and British Judiciary resort to the system of a Jury whose members must not be biased nor exposed to a psychological or emotional brain-wash by the media directed against the persons accused on whom they have to issue a verdict which either condemns or aquits them.