On flimsy evidence Libya was found guilty

[What follows is an excerpt from an article by Jason Pack published on the US National Public Radio website on this date in 2011:]

On flimsy evidence, Libya was found guilty of the devastating 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. Europe was finally on board for comprehensive UN sanctions of Libya, which endured from 1992 to 1999.

In 1999, feeling the pinch caused by his decaying oil infrastructure and declining revenues, Gadhafi turned over the two suspected Lockerbie bombers for trial in the Netherlands (only one, Abdelbasset Ali al-Megrahi, was later convicted). This action caused UN sanctions to be suspended. As more countries began trading with Libya, the US policy dating back to Reagan of actively containing Gadhafi and hoping for his ouster was no longer feasible.

In the new millennium, US and British negotiators intensified their covert dealings with Libyan diplomats, and in 2003, Gadhafi made his first payment of compensation to the Lockerbie victims' families. At the same time, the colonel declared his desire to voluntarily give up his weapons of mass destruction program. (...)

From 2004 to 2010, US diplomats and businessman embarked on the long and hard road of normalization. Erratic Libyan behavior and electorally motivated grandstanding by US congressmen — generally on third-tier issues like Gadhafi's desire to pitch a tent in Central Park or Megrahi's release from a Scottish prison for health reasons — frequently derailed progress.

UN Security Council rejects neutral venue Lockerbie trial proposal

On this date in 1998 the United Nations Security Council held a lengthy debate on Libya’s proposal (based on the scheme that I formulated in January 1994) for a trial of the Lockerbie suspects under Scottish law and procedure but in a non-jury court in the Netherlands. Many countries spoke in favour but the United Kingdom and the United States scorned the idea, and the proposal was ultimately defeated. Accounts of the Security Council proceedings can be read here and here.

Just four months later, on 24 August 1998, the United Kingdom and the United States reversed their position and tabled the scheme that ultimately led to the Lockerbie trial at the Scottish Court in the Netherlands.

UN announces Lockerbie trial going to happen

[What follows is the text of a press release issued on this date in 1999 by the Secretary-General of the United Nations:]

SG/SM/6935 

SECRETARY-GENERAL GREATLY ENCOURAGED BY READINESS OF LIBYA TO PROCEED WITH TRANSFER OF TWO LOCKERBIE ACCUSED TO NETHERLANDS

The following statement was issued today by the spokesman for Secretary-General Kofi Annan:

This afternoon, the Permanent Representative of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Ambassador Abuzed Omar Dorda, hand delivered to the Secretary-General a letter from Omar Mustafa Muntasser, Secretary of the General People's Committee of the People's Bureau for Foreign Liaison and International Cooperation of the Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya.

As already announced by President Nelson Mandela in Tripoli this morning, the letter confirms the readiness of Libya to proceed with the transfer of the two accused to the Netherlands. The Secretary-General is greatly encouraged by this development and the necessary arrangements will now be initiated by the Secretariat.

The Secretary-General has shared the letter with the Security Council.

The Secretary-General would like to record his warm appreciation of the efforts made by President Mandela, as well as Crown Prince Abdullah [of Saudi Arabia] and others in order to bring this matter to a satisfactory conclusion, in cooperation with the authorities of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya.

"We have not seen the end of this case"

[What follows is the text of a report headlined Law expert helps Libya with Lockerbie appeal that appeared in The Scotsman on this date in 2002:]

The legal expert who brokered the Lockerbie trial is helping the Libyan government to lodge a fresh appeal against the conviction of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, it emerged yesterday.

Professor Robert Black, a law lecturer at Edinburgh University, flew to Tripoli the day after Megrahi’s appeal was rejected last week.

He said he regarded the case as a miscarriage of justice because the court did not consider all the available evidence. "We have not seen the end of this case," Prof Black added.

Thousands of people marched through the Libyan capital yesterday in protest at the decision of the appeal court judges to uphold the conviction of Megrahi. Riot police supervised demonstrations outside a UN office.

A statement handed to a UN representative said Megrahi’s life sentence "contradicts international laws, as it was handed as a result of political pressure aimed at settling account with the Libyan revolution."

Prof Black was invited to the country by the Libyan government’s Lockerbie Committee, which is planning to lodge an appeal through the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission. It was he who proposed the idea of trying the Lockerbie suspects in a neutral third country, which was the breakthrough which led to Colonel Muammar al-Gaddafi agreeing to hand the two accused over for trial in the Netherlands.

Megrahi was convicted of the 1988 bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, resulting in the deaths of 270 people, and lost his appeal last week.

Fresh doubts over his conviction were raised with claims that senior police officers covered up the discovery of important evidence in the wreckage of the Boeing 747.

Mary Boylan, 53, a retired Lothian and Borders Police officer, said she found a CIA identification badge among the debris but was told not to make a record of the find in her notebook.

Megrahi was found guilty of loading an unaccompanied suitcase bomb in Malta that was later transferred on to the Pan Am aircraft, which exploded en route to New York.

The Libyan government has said it will appeal the ruling to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, the House of Lords and the European Court of Human Rights.

Prof Black said: "I am sure that at some point they will actually make an application to the Scottish Commission which deals with miscarriages of justice. The commission could then refer it back to the appeal court.

"I predict the grounds for that would be that evidence is emerging that has not yet seen the light of day. There is a hell of a lot more evidence about Lockerbie that appeared at neither the trial nor the appeal."

Libya, which is still subject to stringent UN sanctions over the Lockerbie bombing, faces a claim of up to £1.3 million compensation from relatives of each of the victims.

[RB: Perhaps the most immediate consequence of these discussions in Tripoli was the replacement of the Scottish legal team that had represented Megrahi at the Zeist trial and appeal.]

The issue is public confidence in the administration of criminal justice

[Yesterday’s Justice for Megrahi press conference gets extensive coverage in the media today. Here are two samples:]

From The National:

Campaigners who believe Abdelbaset al-Megrahi was wrongly convicted of the Lockerbie bombing in 1988 have said Lord Advocate Frank Mulholland and the Crown Office should play no part in considering a Police Scotland report into criminal allegations they have made over the case.

And Len Murray, a leading figure in Scottish legal circles, said Mulholland’s position was “untenable”, although any question of resignation was a matter for him. (...)

JfM made nine allegations of criminality in September 2012 against police, Crown Office officials and forensic scientists involved in the original investigation into the bombing and the subsequent trial at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands. They included perjury and perverting the course of justice.

However, JfM said the Lord Advocate and Crown Office personnel subsequently described them as “conspiracy theorists” and dismissed the allegations as “defamatory and entirely unfounded”.

“We feel very strongly that in the light of the sometimes scandalous outbursts that have come from Crown Office and the office of the Lord Advocate, they have disqualified themselves from considering the report which Police Scotland will be making following their inquiry into the nine allegations,” said Murray.

“It is perfectly obvious from these outbursts… that both the Lord Advocate and Crown Office have already taken a view on the matter, and therefore there is no prospect of that police report being considered fairly and impartially.”

[Brian] McConnachie [QC], a former principal advocate depute, said: “We know that Crown Office and the Lord Advocate have expressed what would appear to be a concluded view about the matter and that perhaps is simply symptomatic of the fact that Crown Office these days seem to consider as part of their job to pronounce in relation to pretty much any case or any profile at all.

“But the difficulty here is that if the Lord Advocate has expressed what would appear to be a concluded view about a matter, it is very difficult to see any way in which justice can be done or be seen to be done if the person who is deciding whether or not there are to be proceedings is the person who has already told us that the allegations are defamatory, unfounded and false.”

[John] Finnie [MSP] added: “Justice for Megrahi have posed a series of questions about how the police inquiry will be responded to by Crown Office – eight entirely reasonable questions, and I suspect had there been replies to these questions that you wouldn’t be sitting here today.

“What we maybe should do is tear the top of the paper off that says Justice for Megrahi and say ‘what does this mean for the ordinary citizen who makes serious and significant allegations against very senior people who are involved in our criminal justice system?’”

[Professor Alan] Page said the issue was about public confidence in the administration of criminal justice and that the allegations made by JfM had been dismissed “out of hand as unfounded, false and misleading”.

“This calls into question whether or not the Crown Office is capable of approaching them with the open mind that the administration of criminal justice, which in my view and I think in everyone else’s view, requires.”

From Sputnik International:

Lord Advocate of Scotland Frank Mulholland, the country’s most senior state prosecutor, will be deemed "unfit to hold office" if he does not pass a report into alleged criminality involving his office’s personnel to an independent prosecutor, spokesman for a justice campaign group considering the case told Sputnik on Wednesday.

After a three-year criminal investigation, Police Scotland are now set to pass a report to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS), Scotland’s prosecution service. It follows allegations that senior prosecutors, police officers and prosecution witnesses acted with criminal intent during the trial of Libyan Abdelbaset Megrahi who was convicted of the 1988 bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over the Scottish town of Lockerbie. The claims against prosecutor's office include perversion of the course of justice and perjury.

It is vital that Mulholland avoids a conflict of interest between himself and his duty to the Scottish public, Robert Black of the Justice for Megrahi committee said.

"If the Lord Advocate and COPFS do not recognize and appreciate this, then the Lord Advocate is unfit to hold office and COPFS has lost its moral compass," Black said.

What Lockerbie evidence should be relied on, and what not?

[What follows is a further contribution from Kevin Bannon:]

Lockerbie: the PFLP-GC, the Helsinki warning, Marwan Khreesat, the 1988 Frankfurt bomb factory, the Goben memorandum, Iran, Syria ‘...and all that’ (after Sellar & Yeatman).

The history of the Lockerbie bombing can only be disseminated and understood from that which can be properly and reasonably established, not by uncorroborated hearsay and rumours. We know what was said at trial and in police statements because there are verbatim records. These confirm, for example, that Tony Gauci changed his eyewitness evidence - in every aspect - from a narrative that consistently ruled out the participation of al-Megrahi in the Lockerbie bombing, to one in which served to incriminate him. We know that these changes were made while the police were discussing among themselves the potential of rewards for Gauci - specifically to lubricate his testimony in favour of their suspect-profile. 

The forensic evidence is so profoundly unsatisfactory as to be farcical. A fragment of a time switch, which would link Gauci’s shop to the Pan Am 103 explosive device, and to Libya, was found in the Lockerbie debris on a date which is ambiguous. Both the means of its recognition as significant evidence and the identity of the investigator who first made this discovery – are unclear. The evidence label which annotated the items in the bag, later found to include the timer fragment, had been plainly falsified, but the police officer who admitted having “overwritten” it - and explained why he had done so - later expressed doubt that it was his “handwriting”. The alteration crucially changed the description of the evidence bag’s contents. The page number on which the item was logged in the chief forensic scientist’s notebook had been systematically altered for reasons which remain highly suspicious. The police photograph of the evidence items and its purported date, are inconsistent with other records and the picture is of such poor quality that essential details are unintelligible – contrary to the very purpose of police photographs. The crucial items of evidence – the timer fragment, the radio/cassette recorder which had enclosed it, the fragments of the suitcase which carried it – were not shown to have been tested for explosive residues. 

Incredibly, this catalogue of fiddling and negligence represents the core of the greatest forensic investigation in British criminal history!

This evidence eventually led to the conviction of al-Megrahi – who became a suspect only because of his reputed visit to Gauci’s shop – which transparently never took place. While the find of the timer fragment is generally accepted as almost miraculous, subsequent independent scientific tests on a control sample from the circuit boards supplied to Libya found it to be constituently different from the suspect fragment.

In court, virtually every component of al-Megrahi’s defence was apparently suspended, enabling his incrimination by the contrived prosecution evidence. He was advised to say nothing in his defence in the face of 230 prosecution witness testimonies against the defence’s three; the Crown brought 1,858 court productions to Kamp Zeist, compared with the defence’s seven. In his pre-trial examination, al-Megrahi (like his co-accused) was advised to reply to all 76 questions put to him with a stock refusal to respond, even when the accusations that he planted the bomb were put to him – such is a standard defence procedure in Scotland normally only applied for pathological criminals in open-and-shut cases heard before juries. 

The blatant contradictions in Gauci’s recollections were inexplicably skirted during his cross-examination while al-Megrahi’s counsel openly and repeatedly complemented Gauci on his honesty - at the outset of the appeal he even declared to the Bench, that Gauci’s honesty was above reproach. Other evidence of value to the defence was ignored or blatantly deconstructed. Finally, his advocate simply jettisoned the essential criteria on which al-Megrahi’s appeal might have been effective, even disabling the scope of the Bench to endorse the appeal – as their conclusions confirmed. 

Unfortunately these facts are not generally known because they have not been effectively disseminated; the popular perception is that some dispute al-Megrahi’s conviction, basing their doubts on ‘conspiracy theories’ – the well established euphemism for imaginative fantasies constructed around major crime narratives. In fact, the conspiracy theories in this case, are more steadfastly clung to by those who believe al-Megrahi was justly convicted, including CIA and FBI officials, who have enthusiastically posited al-Megrahi as representing only the tip of an iceberg of international conspirators. The otherwise straightforward narrative about corruption of due process has become lost in a mess of uncorroborated, vaguely intersecting plots, none of which were factually established either during the police investigation or the testimonies at Kamp Zeist. 

The recently posted Scotsman obituary of Lord Coulsfield - referring to the Kamp Zeist verdict as a ‘much debated subject’ and citing the Princess Diana and JFK stories - reveals precisely the detrimental effect of these alternative themes. 

When John Ashton presented ‘Megrahi: You are my Jury’ at the August 2012 Edinburgh book festival before a large audience, one of the first members of the audience to raise a question was a journalist who made plain his deep scepticism about Ashton’s book. This was Ian Black, the Middle East Editor of The Guardian - arguably the most influential individual in Britain concerning perceptions of Middle Eastern affairs. The Guardian is overwhelmingly the newspaper of choice among most Labour and Liberal MPs and academics, particularly in the humanities – a cohort among whom we would expect to find a rich seem of scepticism on this issue. However, I am not aware of significant commentary from these quarters - not even from the shadow cabinet - about this terrible miscarriage of justice, which has had dire consequences, ultimately helping precipitate the destruction of Libya itself.

I strongly believe that the inclusion of the international terrorist conspiracy in the Lockerbie bombing discussion are enormously damaging to the aims and objectives of JfM. In the first place, attempting to identify the actual perpetrators of the Lockerbie bombing is a task a thousand times more complex than unravelling the embroidered ‘evidence’ brought against the late al-Megrahi. Secondly, placing these unsubstantiated theories in the same narrative as genuine, documented evidence reduces what is incontrovertible to similar obscurity – a fait accompli for the opponents of JfM. 

The documented facts of the Lockerbie case are very clear and require no supplement of ‘debateable’ half-baked anecdotes – especially those associated with the ulterior agendas of dis-informants, spooks with CIA connections - and even terrorists - a collective which did so much to frame Abdelbaset al-Megrahi in the first place.

Jury Still Out on Justice for Megrahi

[This is the headline over an article posted today by Ruth Wishart, one of Scotland’s most distinguished journalists, on her blog. It reads as follows:]

Today in Edinburgh a group of eminent people - or according to the Lord Advocate a group of "conspiracy theorists"- are holding a media event to highlight what they and many senior lawyers believe to be a further attempt to close down assertions that the only man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing was not responsible for placing the bomb on board Pan Am 103.

Twenty seven years from the tragedy and four years from the death of Abdulbaset al-Megrahi, the controversy surrounding his conviction and the events at the Scottish court convened at Camp Zeist refuse to go away.  The Justice for Megrahi group which contains a number of prominent campaigners including Len Murray, Iain McKie, the novelist James Robertson and Jim Swire - whose daughter Flora was a victim - have made no fewer than 9 allegations concerning the flawed presentation or omission of vital evidence, and the information withheld from defence lawyers.

Amongst the areas they flag up is their continuing  belief that the bomb was loaded at Heathrow not Malta. that the identification of Megrahi as  the man who purchased clothing in the suitcase  supposedly containing the bomb came from a CIA paid informant, and that the fragments of circuit board recovered from the bomb did not conform, as argued, to the design sold to and used by Libya.

More seriously still, they allege that the prosecution misled the court and the bench when relaying the heavily redacted cables from US intelligence surrounding Megrahi's identification.

But the reason for today's conference is that Operation Sandwood,  the police investigation into these charges  surrounding the behaviour of crown witnesses, and indeed the Crown Office itself, is due to be published imminently.  In the normal course of events this report would go to the Lord Advocate.  Justice for Megrahi members believe this would amount to the Crown Office being the arbiter of its own actions and that a fully independent recipient must be found.

Interestingly Police Scotland yesterday announced that they would have the Sandwood report scrutinised by a QC they appointed "to ensure the critical requirement of demonstrating independence from the Crown'. While the timing of this intervention is hardly co-incidental, it remains to be seeen whether it will allay the disquiet of the JfM protagonists. 

Certainly, thus far they have been unpersuaded by the Lord Advocate's assurance that he can produce such an objective source from within his own organisation. 

Their scepticism is shared by some very prominent figures in the Scottish legal establishement.

Brian McConnachie QC says that:  “Having declared the allegations to be defamatory, unfounded, false and misleading, it is in my opinion impossible for any decision of the Lord Advocate arising out of the allegations to be seen to be impartial, objective or unbiased.”

While Alan Page, Professor of Public Law at Dundee University believes that  “Public confidence in the administration of criminal justice requires there to be no doubt that decisions whether or not to institute criminal proceedings are taken free from political or any other form of bias.”

The waters here are further muddied by the ongoing Crown Office's own investigation into Lockerbie which seeks to uncover which accomplices were also involved.  But, since that process is predicated on an assumption of Megrahi's guilt, it's clear that the two reports might prove entirely contradictory.

In addition a petition submitted to Holyrood's Justice Committee remains open some years after it was first laid.

I have no special expertise legal or otherwise in assessing the strength of the allegations made by the Megrahi committee.  But I do have huge respect for the integrity and knowledge of people like Jim Swire who has exhaustively reviewed the evidence, and James Robertson who painstakingly researched all aspects of the trial during his research for his Lockerbie based book The Professor of Truth.

None of the others involved would appear to have any particular axe to grind save their continuing doubts that there may have been a gross miscarriage of Scottish justice.

Similarly it seems to me foolish to ignore the legal opinions of such senior judicial figures as Brian McConnachie and Alan Page.

But in any event the core legal argument they make in the context of Operation Sandwood is a sound one - if you have an involvement in the matters under consideration, you cannot be the judge of a report on them.

The Lord Advocate, if he is right about these allegations being "misleading, unfounded" and the product of "conspiracy theorists" has surely nothing to lose by letting the report land on a wholly independent desk.

"Impossible for any decision of Lord Advocate arising out of allegations to be seen to be impartial, objective or unbiased"

[What follows is the text of a press release issued by Justice for Megrahi in connection with today’s media conference:]

Top legal experts Brian McConnachie QC and Alan Page, Professor of Public Law at the University of Dundee, have joined MSPs Patrick Harvie and John Finnie in expressing their concern that the Lord Advocate and Crown Office should play any part in the consideration of a report from Police Scotland on their three-year investigation into nine criminal allegations against Crown Office, police and prosecution witnesses involved in the original Lockerbie investigation and trial.

They will join conference Chairperson solicitor Len Murray and other prominent commentators at the above media conference in Edinburgh to express that concern and recommend these authorities step back and allow a totally independent prosecutor, possibly from another legal jurisdiction, to consider what action if any should be taken on the police report.

Their concerns come at a time when a growing band of analysts consider that the Lord Advocate and Crown Office, by consistently exhibiting bias and prejudice towards the allegations and the police investigation, have disqualified themselves from considering the report.

Brian McConnachie QC states: “Having declared the allegations to be defamatory, unfounded, false and misleading, it is in my opinion impossible for any decision of the Lord Advocate arising out of the allegations to be seen to be impartial, objective or unbiased.”

Professor Page states: “Public confidence in the administration of criminal justice requires there to be no doubt that decisions whether or not to institute criminal proceedings are taken free from political or any other form of bias.”

Patrick Harvie MSP states: “While the Lord Advocate rightly enjoys independence and freedom from political influence when considering police reports into criminal acts, that consideration must be seen to be truly independent and not coloured by any bias or prejudice whatsoever.”

John Finnie MSP states: “Parliament has a part to play in ensuring that the Lord Advocate and Crown Office administer their roles without bias and prejudice. Independence does not mean being unaccountable and parliament has a duty to ensure that the public interest is being served at all times.”

Police appoint independent QC to oversee investigation into alleged wrongdoing by Lockerbie prosecutors

[This is the headline over a report published today on the website of The Herald. It reads as follows:]

Police Scotland is close to ending a two-year probe in to allegations of criminality by Lockerbie investigators and prosecutors.

In an unusual move, the national force has has appointed an independent QC to advise it on the inquiry because it could not ask Crown lawyers to assess evidence of alleged wrongdoing against the Crown.

Detectives are investigating nine allegations made by the Justice for Megrahi or JFM group, who believe that the only man ever convicted of the 1988 bombing, Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, was the victim of a miscarriage of justice.

Mr Megrahi died in his native Libya in 2012 protesting his innocence despite his 2001 conviction at a specially convened Scottish court in the Netherlands.

Crown officials have stressed that the Lockerbie case remains live and that they have not ruled out further prosecutions.

Police Scotland has been looking in to the JFM allegations since February 2014 under Operation Sandwood. The campaign group has been lobbying for an independent prosecutor to investigate. The Lord Advocate, Frank Mulholland, has previously said he will appoint a QC to deal with any report from the police. This person would not be the same person as the senior advocate advising the police. [RB: A media conference organised by Justice for Megrahi to be held in Edinburgh today will consider the Lord Advocate’s proposal for dealing with the Operation Sandwood report.]

Deputy Chief Constable Iain Livingstone has now written to the Justice Committee of the Scottish Parliament confirming progress.

He said the allegations were "diverse in nature, resulting in a protracted inquiry".

Mr Livingstone added: "It has required a detailed and methodical approach, to ensure the necessary rigour to investigate the matter of complexity and sensitivity raised.

"As a result the investigation has taken longer than initially assessed.

"I can nevertheless confirm that the investigation has entered its final phase. A detailed report will be submitted by the senior investigating officer to me within the next two months.

"To ensure the critical requirement of demonstrating independence from the Crown, the report will be scrutinised by the independent Queen's Council appointed by Police Scotland."

Detective Superintendent Stuart Johnstone, Senior Investigating Officer for Operation Sandwood, said:

"The Operation Sandwood enquiry into nine allegations by the Justice for Megrahi group is still ongoing; it started in February 2014.

"The operation is reaching its final stages and is being dealt with as a major investigation by Police Scotland.

"A draft report is in the progress of being compiled, drawing on the findings and conclusions of two years of detailed examination and investigation.

"To ensure the critical requirement of demonstrating independence form the Crown, the report and its findings will be scrutinised and assessed by the independent Queen’s Counsel appointed by Police Scotland to provide independent direction and advice."

Justice for Megrahi media conference today

A media conference organised by Justice for Megrahi will take place today at 13.45 at Dynamic Earth, Holyrood Road, Edinburgh EH8 8AS. The event will be chaired by Len Murray (widely regarded as one of Scotland’s most distinguished court solicitors). Amongst those taking part are Brian MacConnachie QC, Professor Alan Page, Patrick Harvie MSP and John Finnie MSP.

Lockerbie bomber in Scots jail

[This is the headline over a report published on the BBC News website on this date in 2002. It reads as follows:]

The man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing has spent his first night at a prison in Glasgow where he will serve the rest of his life sentence.

Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi was flown by helicopter to Barlinnie Prison on Thursday night, hours after losing his appeal against conviction.

The Libyan had been held at the Camp Zeist compound in the Netherlands compound since the start of his trial in April 1999.

There was increased security around Barlinnie Prison on Thursday evening, with a police helicopter and armed officers keeping watch.

The M8 motorway, which runs through Glasgow, was closed in both directions while the helicopter landed at the prison.

Two armed escorts accompanied al-Megrahi on the flight to Scotland's largest jail.

In total 270 people died when a Pan Am airliner was blown up over the Scottish town of Lockerbie in 1988.

Five appeal judges agreed that there was enough circumstantial evidence to convict al-Megrahi of the bombing.

'Brave but innocent'

Al-Megrahi's brother, Mohamed Ali, said the bomber told his mother not to worry about him during his last phone call home before beginning his life sentence.

Speaking to The Herald newspaper from his home in Tripoli, he added that his brother still maintained his innocence.

Mr Ali said: "He is trusting in Allah. He accepted the decision like a brave man even though he knows he is innocent."

"Nobody from our country and society believes in Western justice. They showed they are below the Third World because they bow to pressure from superior countries."

Medical tests

The Scottish Prison Service said al-Megrahi, 49, would at first be held separately in a special secure unit at the jail, which has been dubbed "Gaddafi's Cafe". [RB: The special unit was actually nicknamed “the Gaddafi Cafe”]

But it said he would not receive special treatment "except where safety provisions require it".

He will first be "processed" - undergoing medical and psychiatric tests, and an assessment to establish whether he should serve the rest of his sentence in Barlinnie or another prison.

He will also appear before a court hearing which will decide how long he must spend in jail before being considered for parole. That is expected to be at least 20 years.

The prison service said Libyan consular officials would have "unfettered access", and an independent body such as the UN could monitor his treatment.

Al-Megrahi's relatives would have the same access rights as other inmates' families.

It is believed that he will have three prison officers with him at all times and will be required to work and take his recreation within the unit.

US action

The US Government praised the upholding of al-Megrahi's conviction and said Libya must now pay compensation to his victims.

President George Bush's spokesman, Ari Fleischer, said the case remained open and if new information emerged on other potential suspects, it would be investigated.

In the US, families of victims have launched a multi-million dollar compensation claim against Libya.

Bruce Smith, the husband of one victim, told BBC News on Friday that al-Megrahi was "one of the least of the Libyans involved."

"The civil suit is aimed at the top of the chain of command - at the Libyan Government itself," he said.