Clipper Maid of the Seas

[On this date in 1970 Pan Am’s Clipper Maid of the Seas entered into service. The immediately following paragraph is from an article in 2000 on The Guardian website, the second two are from the Wikipedia article Pan Am Flight 103:]

The Maid of the Seas had been put into service on 12 February 1970 and had since made 16,497 flights and logged in 72,646 flight hours. But, in spite of the age of the machine, the pilots had no reason to worry as they made their final checks.

-----

The aircraft operating Pan Am Flight 103 was a Boeing 747–121, registered N739PA and named Clipper Maid of the Seas, formerly named Clipper Morning Light prior to 1979. It was the 15th 747 built and was delivered in February 1970, one month after the first 747 entered service with Pan Am.

At the time of its destruction, Clipper Maid of the Seas was 18 years of age and had accumulated over 75,000 flying hours. In 1987, it underwent a complete overhaul as it belonged to the civil reserve fleet of aircraft and this aircraft was retrofitted so that, in a national emergency, it could be turned into a freight aircraft within two days' work, according to the Los Angeles Times.

Lockerbie witnesses were paid

[This is the headline over an article by Dr Ludwig de Braeckeleer published in OhmyNews International on this date in 2009. It reads in part:]

In recent times, allegations have resurfaced regarding payments offered to key witnesses of the Lockerbie trial.

Specifically, there have been rumors that Majid Giaka, Paul and Tony Gauci were each paid about US$4 million for their help in the conviction of Megrahi for the bombing of Pan Am 103 over Scotland on Dec. 21, 1988. (...)

Richard Marquise, the FBI agent who led the Lockerbie investigation, forcefully denied that witnesses were ever offered any money.

'"I can assure you that no witnesses were ever offered any money by anyone--including the CIA," Marquise told OhmyNews. "This issue came up at trial and I spoke with the defense lawyers about it in Edinburgh in 1999 -- before trial. No one was promised or even told that they could get money for saying anything. Every FBI agent was under specific orders not to mention money to any potential witness." (...)

'A source speaking on condition of anonymity told Jeff Stein, the national security editor of the Congressional Quarterly, that a key witness, Tony Gauci, and his brother were each paid somewhere between $3 million to $4 million for providing information leading to the conviction of Megrahi.

'Moreover, former State Department lawyer Michael Scharf confirmed to OhmyNews that rewards were paid in the context of the Lockerbie trial.

'"I knew that rewards payments were made, but not the amount. The Awards for Terrorism Information program has been around since the 1980s, and has been expanded to rewards for information leading to the arrest or conviction of international indicted war criminals like Karadzic and Mladic. When I worked at the Office of the Legal Adviser of the State Department I was involved in the program," Scharf wrote in an email to OhmyNews. (...)

'Prof Black, often referred to as the architect of the Lockerbie trial, agrees. "The issue of payments made or promised to witnesses forms an important part of the Grounds of Appeal," Black told the author.

'"At one time in Scotland, if payment had been made, or promised, to a witness that was an absolute bar to his giving evidence. Today, it is simply a factor that must be taken into account in assessing his credibility. However, in order for this to be done, it is necessary that the court should know that the payment was made or promised. Failure by the Crown to disclose the promise or the payment is a serious breach of their duty to the court and to the administration of justice," Black said.'

Lord Advocate Peter Fraser ennobled

[On this date in 1989 Peter Fraser QC was elevated to the peerage as Lord Fraser of Carmyllie. What follows is excerpted from his entry in Wikipedia:]

Fraser first stood for Parliament for Aberdeen North in October 1974, but was beaten by Labour's Robert Hughes.

He was elected as a Conservative & Unionist Member of Parliament for South Angus in 1979, where he remained in the House of Commons until June 1987 (from 1983 representing East Angus). He was Parliamentary Private Secretary to George Younger, Secretary of State for Scotland. In 1982 he was appointed Solicitor General for Scotland by Margaret Thatcher and became Lord Advocate in 1989. He was created a life peer as Baron Fraser of Carmyllie, of Carmyllie in the District of Angus on 10 February 1989 and was appointed a member of the Privy Council the same year.

During his time as Scotland's senior law officer, he was directly responsible for the conduct of the investigation into the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103. Lord Fraser drew up the 1991 indictment against the two accused Libyans and issued warrants for their arrest. But five years after the Pan Am Flight 103 bombing trial, when Abdelbaset al-Megrahi was convicted of 270 counts of murder, he cast doubt upon the reliability of the main prosecution witness, Tony Gauci. According to The Sunday Times of 23 October 2005, Lord Fraser criticised the Maltese shopkeeper, who sold Megrahi the clothing that was used to pack the bomb suitcase, for inter alia being "not quite the full shilling" and "an apple short of a picnic".

Lord Advocate, Colin Boyd, who was chief prosecutor at the Lockerbie trial, reacted by saying: "It was Lord Fraser who, as Lord Advocate, initiated the Lockerbie prosecution. At no stage, then or since, has he conveyed any reservation about any aspect of the prosecution to those who worked on the case, or to anyone in the prosecution service." Boyd asked Lord Fraser to clarify his apparent attack on Gauci by issuing a public statement of explanation.

William Taylor QC, who defended Megrahi at the trial and the appeal, said Lord Fraser should never have presented Gauci as a crown witness: "A man who has a public office, who is prosecuting in the criminal courts in Scotland, has got a duty to put forward evidence based upon people he considers to be reliable. He was prepared to advance Gauci as a witness of truth in terms of identification and, if he had these misgivings about him, they should have surfaced at the time. The fact that he is coming out many years later after my former client has been in prison for nearly four and a half years is nothing short of disgraceful. Gauci's evidence was absolutely central to the conviction and for Peter Fraser not to realise that is scandalous," Taylor said.

Tam Dalyell, former Labour MP who played a crucial role in organising the trial at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands, described Lord Fraser's comments as an 'extraordinary development': "I think there is an obligation for the chairman and members of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission to ask Lord Fraser to see them and testify under oath - it's that serious. Fraser should have said this at the time and, if not then, he was under a moral obligation to do so before the trial at Zeist. I think there will be all sorts of consequences," Dalyell declared.

[RB: Readers may also care to be reminded of James Robertson's magnificent jeu d'esprit Oh, come on, it's all over now.]

The World Court and Lockerbie

[What follows is excerpted from Justice Weeramantry and the Bridges of Understanding published today in the Sri Lanka Guardian:]

When two Libyan men were accused of causing the explosion of a bomb in the Pan Am Flight 103 over the town of Lockerbie, Scotland, on 21 December 1988, which killed all 259 passengers and crew, as well as eleven residents of the town of Lockerbie, The UK and US Governments requested Libya to extradite the accused so that they could be prosecuted in Scotland or in The United States. The matter came up before The International Court of Justice where Judge Weeramantry was one of the Bench hearing the case. One of the issues in the case was whether the Court had jurisdiction to issue provisional measures as applied for by Libya, in the face of Article 25 of the United Nations Charter which obligated member States to carry out decisions of the Security Council, which impliedly precluded the members from being obligated to carry out measures prescribed by the ICJ. Judge Weeramantry opined that both the Security Council and the Court were created by the Charter and therefore were complimentary to each other, ascribing to the court much needed credibility and jurisdiction.

As part of his judgment, Justice Weeramnatry said: “A great judge once said that the laws are not silent amidst the clash of arms. In our age we need also to assert that the laws are not powerless to prevent the clash of arms. The entire law of the United Nations has been built up around the notion of peace and the prevention of conflict… [T]he Court, in an appropriate instance where possible conflict threatens rights that are being litigated before it is not powerless to issue provisional measures conserving those rights by restraining an escalation of the dispute and the possible resort to force”.

[RB: My views on this very important World Court case can be read here. It is one of the minor tragedies of Lockerbie that the case was dropped after the Lockerbie trial. Had it proceeded, it is likely that it would have established that the ICJ had jurisdiction to review the legality of UN Security Council resolutions, which would have amounted to a significant brake on the power of, particularly, the permanent members of the Council.]

Guilty of monumental hypocrisy

[On this date in 2011 I reproduced on this blog Ian Bell’s column in that day’s edition of The Herald. It no longer seems to appear on the paper’s website, but it is worth repeating here:]

Sir Gus O’Donnell’s trawl through certain documents relating to the Lockerbie bombing has become very bad news for Labour.

It is bad in London, bad in Edinburgh; bad for reputations, bad for careers. On both sides of the border, the charge is the same: saying one thing, doing another. The only difference is that some things were shouted in one place and whispered elsewhere.

David Cameron handled the report with a certain vicious elegance in the Commons, in his best more-in-sorrow-than-anger voice. Too many things, he pointed out, were left unsaid by Labour ministers. Whether he would have behaved any differently in their shoes was a point he was happy to leave moot. He had certain aims in mind, and he achieved them.

Thus: blame Labour, blame the SNP, placate America, exonerate BP, and remind us that he was always opposed to the freeing of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi on any grounds. Better still, for the eternal interests of Her Majesty’s Government, nothing in O’Donnell’s document obliged Cameron to deal with a real question: what of profound doubts over the original conviction?

No-one in the Commons, as usual, had a word to say about that.

Labour was all over the place. Gordon Brown was forced into a statement that answered no questions. Jack Straw, England’s Justice Secretary in the period at issue, fell to parsing any phrase that might provide an excuse. Meanwhile, the Scottish party found itself in a truly hideous position.

Either its leading members knew about London’s efforts to “facilitate” a release deal with Libya, or they did not. If not, what does that tell us about relationships between Labour in Edinburgh and Labour in Westminster?

But if all was known, what excused the many, vehement accusations hurled at Kenny MacAskill, the SNP minister who freed Megrahi? Labour in Scotland was still at that game this week, even when it was beyond doubt that its colleagues in London had connived in Libyan efforts. Straw, O’Donnell tells us, even thought of supplying a supportive letter.

It’s possible, of course, that some Scottish Labour figures were “in the loop” and some were not. The Scotland Office, first under Des Browne, and by October 2008 in the charge of Jim Murphy, was under no illusions. The latter minister was certainly given the minutes of calls between Straw and Alex Salmond. So what about Holyrood?

But this means that some passionate opponents of Megrahi’s release were permitted – encouraged? – to go on conducting a campaign against MacAskill while the truth was otherwise kept hidden. Take your pick: scandal, shambles, or a bit of both?

None is easy to spin, but Labour has done its best. Supported by the – no doubt unprompted – right-wing blogger Guido Fawkes, a tale filtered into the London media this week to the effect that MacAskill was prepared, late in 2007, to amend the Scottish Government’s opposition to Labour’s prisoner transfer agreement with Libya. The alleged price: cash to pay off human rights claims over prison slopping out, and devolved control over airgun legislation. And how tawdry would that have been?

O’Donnell certainly relates – of exchanges in November, 2007 – that “it is clear that HMG’s understanding was that a PTA without any exclusions” – meaning Megrahi, the only Libyan in a British prison – “might be acceptable to the Scottish Government if progress could be made with regards to ongoing discussions...” (on slopping out and firearms law). The Cabinet Secretary’s footnotes then refer the reader to letters between Straw and Browne in which the two allude to that “understanding”.

But O’Donnell’s very next sentence in the body of his text records that, “Kenny MacAskill restated the Scottish Government’s position that any PTA should exclude anyone convicted of the Lockerbie bombing in a letter to Jack Straw on 6 December 2007”.

So much was already in the public domain, thanks to the Scottish Government’s website. Nor did the SNP deviate from that position.

Labour’s attempt to establish otherwise this week depends entirely on a “leaked” email from John McTernan, Brown’s adviser, who gleaned his “understanding” from unnamed “officials”.

You wouldn’t base a Scottish election campaign on that, I’d have thought. But what else does Iain Gray and his Holyrood party now possess? Continued demands for the release of Megrahi’s medical records? Such material is redacted even in O’Donnell’s report, on data protection grounds. An oncologist would tell you, meanwhile, that a prognosis is not a prediction, but add that prostate cancer treatments – and hence survival rates – are improving yearly.

Even given the horrific scale of Lockerbie, an attack on compassion is tricky. It’s also beside the point. As is O’Donnell’s report, and Cameron’s lofty satisfaction, and Brown’s floundering response.

The fact that Labour has been found guilty of monumental hypocrisy is important in its own right, no doubt, but it is only one part of a larger argument. In the matter of mass murder, the question of guilt is paramount. Unless it is settled, beyond doubt, every other “row” is chatter, and distracting chatter at that. In the case of Megrahi, despite anything politicians claim, there is no certainty.

We do know, though, of $3 million paid by US authorities to Maltese brothers, Toni and Paul Gauci, for the sake of identification evidence. We know that Lord Peter Fraser, then Lord Advocate, would later describe the former brother, supposedly a star witness, as less than the full shilling and “an apple short of a picnic”.

We know, furthermore, that the forensic “experts” on both sides of the Atlantic, providers of still more “key evidence” at Camp Zeist, were later discredited thoroughly. We know Professor Hans Koechler, Kofi Annan’s UN observer, damned the trial as an outrage and an abuse.

There’s more, much more. We don’t know, though, why Megrahi still fails to provide proof of his innocence. We don’t know why no political party – the SNP included – is prepared to entertain even an inquiry into the conviction.

Those rows over the compassionate release of “the Lockerbie bomber” will do instead, at least until some successor to Sir Gus cares to examine a few more of the papers salted away in the hidden record.

Anonymous CIA officers say was evidence that supported fantasist Giaka

[What follows is excerpted from a report published today on the website of The Sun:]

CIA agents have revealed evidence that could have helped the controversial Lockerbie bombing prosecutions was withheld from trial, The Sun Online can reveal.

The revelation comes in an internal memo written by agents involved in the case following the 1988 bombing over Scotland that killed 270 people.

Campaigners say the document provides further evidence the plot was carried out by Libya and that the bomb was placed on the jet in Malta – not in Heathrow, as some have claimed.

It comprises interviews with seven anonymous CIA officers reflecting on the case and was published for one of the agency’s internal publications.

Much of it centres on Abdul Majid Gialka, a prosecution witness in the trial who had been nicknamed the CIA’s “Libyan asset” and “Puzzle Piece” because of his ability to link aspects of the plot.

Majid was a double agent who defected to the US from the Libyan intelligence service and leaked top secret information to the Americans.

His work with the CIA helped point the finger towards Abdelbaset al-Megrahi as the man who planted the bomb.

This was despite trial judges ruling they were “unable to accept Abdul Majid as a credible and reliable witness on any matter”.

But the CIA memo reveals there were further intelligence cables not shown in trial that could have supported his testimony.

It states: “[REDACTED] the court didn’t believe Majid on a lot of his points because the justices never saw a second, more extensive, batch of redacted cables, which would have confirmed much of what he said in court.”

It does not specify which of his claims could have been supported but suggests the reason for this could have been an attempt to protect CIA methods and US state secrets.

Today controversy continues to swirl around the guilt of al-Megrahi. Some claim he was innocent, while others say the bomb could have been placed on the jet in London and not Malta, where he operated.

The memo also notes a number of CIA operatives were denied the opportunity to give evidence – this time a strategic decision taken by the lead prosecutor – in support of Majid’s claims.

It states: “We all felt that it was unfortunate that they did not testify. They felt frustrated that they did not appear, because, had they appeared, they probably would have been able to bolster Majid’s credibility.

“They would have been able to corroborate and expand on a number of things that Majid had testified about but on which he had been badgered and belaboured and picked apart by the defence.”

Kenny MacAskill, the Scottish MP who made the decision in 2009 to free al-Megrahi back to Libya on compassionate grounds, told The Sun Online Majid had been rejected by the court as a “supergrass”.

“That he was, but it was clear he was telling the truth about a lot of what was going on by Megrahi and his co-accused.”

MacAskill, the author of the book The Lockerbie Bombing: The Search for Justice, added: “Moreover, it shows that the CIA had other informants not just in Libya but at the airport in Malta.

“That has never been put before the courts. All this shows Libya was responsible and Megrahi had a role in it.”

John Ashton, the author of a book that suggests al-Megrahi was innocent of the bombing, told The Sun Online the note about additional cables was “interesting, but I have trouble believing it”.

He added that Majid “was such a problematic witness that the CIA would have been keen to disclose anything that supported his testimony”.

[RB: It does not surprise me that CIA officers should try now to contend that the disaster that Giaka was for the prosecution case was not their responsibility and that, notwithstanding what his CIA handlers said about him in the notorious cables to Langley HQ, there was material that supported him. It does surprise me (but, alas, only slightly) that Kenny MacAskill should seek to lend weight to this blatant CIA self-justification attempt.]

Lockerbie revelations deserve inquiry

[This is the headline over a group of letters published on The Scotsman website on this date in 2011. Here are three of them:]

Once more another dynamic is added to the case of the Lockerbie bomber and with it comes a whole set of new arguments as to why he was released.

Of course, what people and the media in particular appear to do is see the recent revelations of the previous UK government exerting pressure on the Scottish Government as only a part of the decision to release him.

However, we are still left with the elephant in the room and that is the whole complex nature of the Lockerbie case. One cannot seriously make useful conclusions with this week's "revelations" without looking at the wider conviction of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi.

This case is not only clouded in terms of the release, but in terms of the process by which he was convicted. How is it that revelations on his release are discussed but none of the more significant revelations in terms of after his trial: ie the new evidence or evidence not given at the trial?

We should go back to before Megrahi was released. Some see the release of the bomber as evidence of global power politics at work. This is perhaps true, but why is it that the question of global power politics in Megrahi's conviction is never debated - including the legal trial of Megrahi?

There are, therefore, two different elements that are clouded: his release, but, more importantly, his conviction, by which we came to this in the first place.

People have the right to be concerned at the release of a convicted bomber but should they not be more concerned about how a legal system can convict a man with such evidence and how a legal system can be bent in the face of global power politics?

The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission stated: "The Libyan may have suffered a miscarriage of justice." An independent inquiry would be the only way to sort all these issues.

Jack Fraser

You note that Kenny MacAskill refused to use the Prisoner Transfer Agreement (Comment, 8 February).

In that case, why did he tell Megrahi that he could not be released under that agreement until he dropped his appeal? Megrahi promptly withdrew the appeal and was then released on compassionate grounds. One can only suspect that this was a ruse to bury the appeal and all it might reveal about the safety of Megrahi's conviction.

Steuart Campbell

As our deplorable politicians dive for cover for fear they are accused of moral courage, I prefer to recall the noble people who did seek freedom for Megrahi.

First among these is the GP, Jim Swire, whose daughter Fiona was a victim but who relentlessly campaigned for the unsafe verdict at Camp Zeist to be overturned.

He was joined by such seekers after justice as Nelson Mandela, Lockerbie's Robert Black, the UN observer Hans Kchler, Tam Dalyell and the leaders of the Scottish churches.

Even in the vengeful USA, there were brave individuals such as President Kennedy's valued adviser, Pierre Salinger, who protested the innocence of Megrahi.

He reminded Americans that, not only was there no evidence that the bomb had been put on board in Malta, but Air Malta won a libel action in 1993 establishing that it was not.

(Dr) John Cameron

Judge questions Maltese bomb link

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

An appeal court judge has questioned whether the evidence presented at the Lockerbie trial was sufficient to have convicted a Libyan secret service agent.

Abdelbaset ali Mohmed al-Megrahi was appealing at a special court in the Netherlands against his conviction for mass murder.

One of the five judges hearing the case, Lord Osborne, said the bomb which brought down Pan-Am Flight 103 may not have been loaded in Malta as the trial had heard.

But Alan Turnbull QC, for the Crown, insisted that there was enough circumstantial evidence to prove the Maltese connection.

Al-Megrahi was found guilty last year of loading a suitcase bomb in Malta, which was then transferred via Frankfurt onto Pan Am Flight 103. (...)

During the appeal hearing, Al-Megrahi's defence team argued there was doubt that the bomb started its journey in Malta.

The defence suggested that it was more likely to have been loaded at Frankfurt or Heathrow.

Lord Osborne accepted there was evidence that Al-Megrahi had worked for the Libyan secret service in Malta and had bought clothes there, fragments of which were found in the Lockerbie wreckage.

But he said that despite this, it was another matter to suggest the bomb had got onto the flight in Malta.

He said: "It is quite difficult, rationally, to follow how the [trial] court took the steps it did in saying we don't know how it got on to the flight, but it must have been there."

However, Mr [Turnbull] said that documentation from Frankfurt appeared to suggest the carriage of an unaccompanied bag.

"All that is left is the reconcile two apparently contradictory portions of evidence," he said.

"This is a criminal act, not an act of negligence. Procedures exist at airports to prevent this event occurring.

"This event did occur, procedures were subverted, the only question is where those procedures were subverted."

Lord Osborne then asked if a terrorist was more likely to draw up a plan which minimised the risk of flights being delayed or the bag getting lost in the system.

"Surely if one is determined to effect a criminal purpose of this kind, one would wish to take all reasonable steps to ensure that venture succeeded?" he asked.

Mr Turnbull said: "It is in the nature of an act of terrorism that it implies the ability and desire to take risks, both of detection and of failure."

He also dismissed defence claims about Heathrow being a more likely point of infiltration as "entirely subjective comment."

[RB: Here is something that I wrote in May 2011 when Lord Osborne retired from the bench:]

The judge in question, Lord Osborne, asked many penetrating questions during the course of the appeal and had the Crown struggling to provide answers.  Regrettably, the restricted compass within which Megrahi's then legal team chose to present the appeal meant that the court could not give effect to the weighty concerns raised by Lord Osborne and his colleague Lord Kirkwood.

Legality of UN Security Council Lockerbie resolutions

[On this date in 1992 the International Progress Organisation submitted to the United Nations Security Council a memorandum signed by Professor Hans Kőchler contesting the legality of the requirement imposed on Libya by Security Council Resolution 731 (21 January 1992) to extradite the Lockerbie suspects to the United States or the United Kingdom for trial. The memorandum reads in part:]

1.     Security Council resolution 731 (1992) is not in conformity with the requirements of Article 33 of the Charter of the United Nations regarding the peaceful settlement of disputes between Member States. Article 33 requires that the parties "shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement ...".

2.  The Security Council - acting under Chapter VI of the Charter of the United Nations, as required - did not pay proper attention to the specifications of Article 36, paragraph 3, according to which the Council, when making recommendations, should consider "that legal disputes should as a general rule be referred by the parties to the International Court of Justice".

3.  The procedure in adopting the above-mentioned resolution was not in conformity with the stipulation of Article 27, Paragraph 3, of the Charter according to which, in decisions under Chapter VI, a party to a dispute shall abstain from voting. This obligation in the present dispute clearly exists for the United States of America, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and France.

4.  In its letter of 18 January 1992, Libya, in regard to arbitration of the present dispute, has formally invoked article 14 of the Montreal Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation. The Convention establishes and controls the legal obligations of Contracting Parties, including the United States, the United Kingdom, France and Libya, in connection with legal proceedings related to the destruction of PanAm flight 103 and UTA flight 772. Since all the members of the Security Council are parties to the Convention, they therefore have an obligation to do nothing that would interfere with or prejudice the arbitration process. As international relations within the United Nations framework are based on the rule of law, the countries concerned should fully apply the procedures of the Montreal Convention as the chosen way for addressing this international dispute.

5.  Libya, the United Kingdom and the United States have also ratified article 14 of the Montreal Convention according to which the present dispute may be referred to the International Court of Justice by any of the parties if, within six months from the date of the request for arbitration, the parties are unable to agree on the organization of arbitration. The United States and the United Kingdom are therefore obligated to proceed in accordance with the arbitration provisions of article 14. To date they failed to do so, thereby frustrating the treaty and the method provided by international law through the Montreal Convention for addressing acts of terrorism against international civil aviation. If they reject arbitration formally or de facto in violation of the treaty, then the matter should be submitted to the International Court of Justice as the legal and specific means of determining obligations of Parties under the Convention.

6.  Libya has performed its duties under the Montreal Convention, including its obligation under article 5, Paragraph 1. Libya immediately exercised its jurisdiction over the two alleged offenders, it notified the other Parties that the suspects were in custody and that immediate steps had been taken to institute a preliminary inquiry.

7.  All Parties required were notified of the initiation of the preliminary inquiry and requested to cooperate with the Libyan judicial authorities. These authorities made the same request in official communications to the Attorney-General of the United States of America, the Foreman of the Grand Jury in the District of Columbia in the United States, and the French examining magistrate. As of this date, although obligated under the Montreal Convention, all of the requested Governments and officials have failed to respond. Until their evidence can be assessed, Libya is unable to complete the analysis that the Montreal Convention requires. Therefore, the United States and the United Kingdom are frustrating the treaty. Under the circumstances, the insistence by Security Council members on the extradition of the two suspects is in violation of article 7 of the Convention.    

8.  For the Security Council to deal with the matter to which Council resolution 731 (1992) refers is unprecedented in the United Nations history. The question of extradition in relation to tragic incidents that are several years old is essentially legal in nature. For the Council to endeavor to adjudicate such matters is beyond its power and its capacity. Such matters must be dealt with in accordance with the relevant international legal instruments that apply, and not in a highly politicized context. The Montreal Convention has for 20 years governed unlawful acts against the safety of international civil aviation. The International Court of Justice has jurisdiction to determine violations of the Convention. The Security Council should take no action which would interfere with legal procedures and/or which could aggravate the present dispute among Member States.

The International Progress Organization expresses the hope that the Security Council will take no action that could be seen as justifying aggressive acts by Member States in connection with the present dispute.

Having taken note of the resolutions adopted by the League of Arab States and by the Organization of the Islamic Conference, we appeal to the Security Council not to take any measure which would jeopardize an independent legal investigation of the case, and to support a policy of constructive dialogue to contain the present crisis. Only this would be in conformity with the requirements of reviving the Charter of the United Nations as an instrument to establish a new world order of democracy, peace and justice for all nations, large and small.

[RB: Those interested in the legality of the resolutions of the UN Security Council regarding Lockerbie, can find a discussion by me here.]