Security Council meeting 3864

The President

I request members of the Council to stand and observe a minute of silence in honour of the memory of the victims of Pan Am Flight 103 and of UTA Flight 772.

The President

I should like to inform the Council that I have received letters from the representatives of Algeria, Colombia, Cuba, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Egypt, Ghana, Guinea-Bissau, India, Indonesia, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Malaysia, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Morocco, Namibia, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, the Sudan, the Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia, the United Arab Emirates, the United Republic of Tanzania, Yemen and Zimbabwe, in which they request to be invited to participate in the discussion of the item on the Council's agenda. In conformity with the usual practice, I propose, with the consent of the Council, to invite those representatives to participate in the discussion without the right to vote, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Charter and rule 37 of the Council's provisional rules of procedure.

There being no objection, it is so decided.

On behalf of the Security Council, I welcome the Secretary of the General People's Committee for Foreign Liaison and International Co-operation of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and invite him to take a seat at the Council table.

The President

I should like to inform the Council that I have received a letter dated 13 March 1998 from the Permanent Representative of Indonesia to the United Nations, which reads as follows:

"I have the honour to request that the Security Council extend an invitation under rule 39 of its provisional rules of procedure to Mr. Mahamadou Abou, Deputy Permanent Observer of the Organization of the Islamic Conference to the United Nations, during the Council's discussion of the item entitled, Letters dated 20 and 23 December 1991, from France, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America (S/23306, S/23307, S/23308, S/23309 and S/23317', to be held on 20 March 1998."

That letter has been published as a document of the Security Council under the symbol S/1998/251.

If I hear no objection, I shall take it that the Security Council agrees to extend an invitation under rule 39 of its provisional rules of procedure to Mr. Abou.

There being no objection, it is so decided.

I should like to inform the Council that I have received a letter dated 16 March 1998 from the Permanent Representative of Bahrain to the United Nations, which reads as follows:

"I have the honour to request the Security Council to extend an invitation, under rule 39 of the Council's provisional rules of procedure, to His Excellency Ambassador Hussein Hassouna, Permanent Observer of the League of Arab States to the United Nations, during the Security Council's formal open debate on Libya, which will take place on Friday, 20 March 1998."

That letter has been has been published as a document of the Security Council under the symbol S/1998/252. If I hear no objection, I shall take it that the Security Council agrees to extend an invitation under rule 39 of its provisional rules of procedure to Mr. Hassouna.

There being no objection, it is so decided.

I should like to inform the Council that I have received a letter dated 18 March 1998 from the Permanent Representative of Gabon to the United Nations, which reads as follows:

"I have the honour to request that during the meeting of the Security Council devoted to the consideration of the question of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America, the Council extend an invitation, under rule 39 of the Council's provisional rules of procedure, to His Excellency Mr. Amadou Kebe, Permanent Observer of the Organization of African Unity to the United Nations."

That letter has been has been published as a document of the Security Council under the symbol S/1998/253.

If I hear no objection, I shall take it that the Security Council agrees to extend an invitation under rule 39 of its provisional rules of procedure to Mr. Kebe.

There being no objection, it is so decided.

The Security Council will now begin its consideration of the item on its agenda. The Security Council is meeting in accordance with the understanding reached in its prior consultations, having before it the letter dated 2 March 1998 from the Permanent Representative of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council, document S/1998/179; the letter dated 4 March 1998 from the representatives of Algeria, Egypt, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Mauritania, Morocco, the Syrian Arab Republic and Tunisia to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council, document S/1998/195; and the letter dated 4 March 1998 from the Permanent Representative of Mali to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council, document S/1998/199.

I should like to draw the attention of the members of the Council to the following other documents: S/1998/190, S/1998/191, S/1998/192 and S/1998/242, letters dated 2, 2, 4 and 17 March 1998, respectively, from the Permanent Representative of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council; S/1998/196, letter dated 4 March 1998 from the Permanent Representative of Zimbabwe to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General, transmitting a letter of the same date from the Secretary-General of the Organization of African Unity addressed to the Secretary-General; S/1998/198, letter dated 5 March 1998 from the Acting Permanent Representative of Saudi Arabia to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council; S/1998/200, letter dated 5 March 1998 from the Permanent Representative of Colombia to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council; S/1998/201, letter dated 15 January 1998 from the Secretary-General addressed to the President of the Security Council, transmitting the report submitted to him by the fact-finding mission to the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya; S/1998/202, letter dated 5 March 1998 from the Permanent Representative of Zimbabwe to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council, transmitting a letter of the same date from the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Zimbabwe and Chairman of the Organization of African Unity (OAU) Committee on the Dispute between the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and the United Kingdom and the United States addressed to the President of the Security Council; and S/1998/239, letter dated 16 March 1998 from the Permanent Representative of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Acting Permanent Representative of the United States of America to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council.

The first speaker inscribed on my list is the distinguished Secretary of the General People's Committee for Foreign Liaison and International Cooperation of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, His Excellency Mr. Omar Mustafa Muntasser, to whom I give the floor.

Mr. Muntasser (Libya)

Allow me at the outset to congratulate you, Sir, on the assumption of the presidency of the Security Council for this month. As an African brother, I am very pleased to see you guiding our debate.

I wish also to express to you, Mr. President, and to the members of the Security Council our gratitude for your agreeing to convene this formal meeting. Undoubtedly, it is a step that we fully appreciate. We believe it is appreciated by the entire international community as represented by Member States of the United Nations, as it constitutes a signal of a commitment to compliance with the provisions of the United Nations Charter. This meeting is being held in accordance with Articles 31 and 32 of the Charter, in response to our formal requests contained in documents S/1998/179 and S/1997/857.

I would also like to express our solidarity and sympathy with the families of the Lockerbie victims and our sadness at their suffering. We hope that a quick agreement will be reached on a resolution of the dispute over a venue for the trial of the two suspects in order to end their suffering and the suffering of millions of Libyan families.

Today's Security Council agenda item goes back seven years -- "Letters dated 20 and 23 December 1991, S/23306, S/23307, S/23308, S/23309 and S/23317". Some of these letters contained demands from the United States and the United Kingdom upon Libya. Those two countries chose to announce those demands first in a press conference, and not through accepted legal channels and judicial procedures.

Those demands were, first, the extradition of two Libyan citizens suspected of being involved in the incident of the destruction of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988. This demand runs counter to Libyan national law and most laws in the world relating to jurisdiction and non-extradition of citizens. It runs counter to international customary law. It also runs counter to the 1971 Montreal Convention and even to the judgements of the United States Supreme Court barring extradition in the absence of an extradition treaty. This is precisely the case between Libya and the United States and the United Kingdom.

The second demand was the payment of compensation, which is indeed an outrage for any legal conscience because it contravenes the law and encroaches upon the defendant's right to being considered innocent until proven guilty. Moreover, such a demand deviates from the right course of the law as regards civil liability, particularly the liability of the State, which attaches to a criminal act.

The third and strangest demand was that Libya should provide the evidence proving the guilt of the two suspects. It is a well-known fact that Libya neither accused nor suspected the two Libyan citizens; it was the United States and the United Kingdom who accused the two Libyan citizens, and they, not Libya, therefore bear the burden of providing evidence.

Strange as they are, all these demands are related to legal procedures and any dispute over them is a legal one. This is exactly what Libya has repeatedly emphasized, and it has thus dealt with these demands on that basis.

Allow me at this juncture briefly to go over the developments of this dispute as is required by such an important situation for my country, which, having done no wrong and in the absence of a court judgement, has been suffering, together with its people, from collective sanctions for the last six years. All of this suffering, of severe material and moral magnitude, is without a legal basis. Add to this the suffering of the families of the victims of this tragic accident, who are, like us, anxious to have the two suspects brought to trial in a just and fair court, to uncover the truth and to put an end to their suffering and that of our people.

Allow me to describe the evolution and background of the dispute, which I shall summarize with the following points.

First, the suspicion of the involvement of two Libyan citizens in the Lockerbie incident was based on the allegation that they placed an unaccompanied suitcase containing a time-bomb on an Air Malta flight that took off from Malta.

Second, the Government of Malta investigated the matter and concluded that there were no unaccompanied bags on that flight. Further, the competent authorities in Germany also investigated the matter and found nothing to corroborate the story of the bag.

Third, right from the start, Libya dealt with the suspicion of its two citizens, within the framework of the 1971 Montreal Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation, of which article 7 accords Libya judicial competence for trying the two suspects. Legal procedures provided for in article 6 of the same Convention were put into effect. On the basis of these procedures, the two suspects were apprehended and two judges were entrusted with investigating the case which they started.

Fourth, in a letter sent to the Secretary of State of the United States and the Foreign Minister of the United Kingdom, the Secretary of the General People's Committee for Foreign Liaison and International Cooperation of Libya called for the implementation of article 14 of the 1971 Montreal Convention, which states that

"Any dispute between two or more Contracting States ... which cannot be settled through negotiations, shall, at the request of one of them, be submitted to arbitration. If within six months from the date of the request for arbitration the Parties are unable to agree on the organization of the arbitration, any one of those Parties may refer the dispute to the International Court of Justice by request in conformity with the Statute of the Court."

Fifth, the issue was brought before the Libyan legislative authorities -- the General People's Congress -- during its 1992 session, and it did not object to the investigation and the trial of the two suspects being taken up by the Committee of Seven established by the Arab League to deal with the dispute or by the United Nations before a just and fair court to be agreed upon.

Sixth, Libya proposed that the Secretary-General should establish a legal committee composed of neutral and impartial judges to ascertain the facts.

Seventh, Libya declared its readiness to enter into negotiations with the States concerned, under the auspices of the United Nations Secretary-General, for the purpose of conducting a trial in a neutral country.

Eighth, the countries concerned immediately transformed the question from a legal to a political one by submitting it to the Security Council. Within one month, the Council adopted resolution 731 (1992) on 21 January 1992 under the threat of military aggression being launched against Libya. This forced the Security Council to adopt the resolution in order to save Libya from a greater danger which was looming. The United States of America, let us not forget, attacked Libya in 1986.

Ninth, resolution 731 (1992) did not address the Libyan Government except to urge the Libyan Government to provide a full and effective response to these demands in order to contribute to the suppression of international terrorism. That resolution was adopted in clear violation of the provisions and principles of the Charter of the United Nations whose Article 27, paragraph 3, states,

"Decisions of the Security Council on all other matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members including the concurring votes of the permanent members; provided that, in decisions under Chapter VI, and under paragraph 3 of Article 52, a party to a dispute shall abstain from voting."

The parties to the dispute did take part in the voting and did not abstain, as is provided by Article 27.

Resolution 731 (1992) was also adopted in a clear violation of Article 33, paragraph 1, of the Charter, which states,

"The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements or other peaceful means of their own choice."

Paragraph 2 of the same Article states,

"The Security Council shall ..., call upon the parties to settle their dispute by such means."

Resolution 731 (1992) was also adopted in a clear violation of Article 36, paragraph 3, of the Charter which states,

"In making recommendations under this Article the Security Council should also take into consideration that legal disputes should as a general rule be referred by the parties to the International Court of Justice."

In view of this dangerous development which politicized a legal question and of the refusal of the other two parties to establish judicial cooperation, Libya unilaterally resorted to the International Court of Justice on 3 March 1992. In so doing, Libya has met all its commitments made obligatory under applicable international law.

In a belated attempt to pre-empt the Court's decision, and after Libya's submission of its claim to the International Court of Justice, the two countries concerned quickly resorted to the Security Council, pushing it into adopting resolution 748 (1992) on 31 March 1992 and Security Council resolution 883 (1993) on 11 November 1993, imposing sanctions on my country and expanding the sanctions. Those resolutions were based on Security Council resolution 731 (1992), which was adopted in clear violation of Articles 27, 33, and 36 of the Charter. Legal rules stipulate that that which is illegally based is likewise illegal. Furthermore, those resolutions were adopted under Chapter VII of the Charter, which deals with "threats to the peace, breaches of the peace, and acts of aggression".

Everybody knows that the tragic Lockerbie incident took place in 1988, four years prior to the adoption of those Security Council resolutions, and that the suspicion involved two individuals, who could not constitute a threat to the peace, breach the peace or commit acts of aggression. How can two individuals threaten or destabilize the peace or commit an act of aggression?

The two countries concerned challenged the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice in handling this case, asserting that the Montreal Convention was not applicable. Accordingly, the Court was obliged to review this aspect of the case and to postpone reviewing the original case, thus leading to a further delay in dealing with the dispute.

In the light of all this, Libya applied the provisions of Article 33 of the Charter, resorting to regional and international organizations to seek a solution by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration or judicial settlement. Libya submitted the issue to the League of Arab States, the Organization of African Unity, the Organization of the Islamic Conference and the Non-Aligned Movement. These organizations established committees which contacted the parties concerned in search of a solution that would satisfy all parties. However, their noble endeavours were aborted through rejection, disregard and worse. Those organizations, once their noble efforts of mediation or conciliation had failed, submitted proposals aimed at the judicial settlement of the question through one of three options.

The two countries rejected all the offers and proposals put forward by those regional and international organizations, which together with some other countries that are not members of those organizations, constitute the international community. The position of the United States and the United Kingdom, by virtue of their permanent membership in the Security Council, where they enjoy veto power, prevented a response to these proposals in spite of their repeated submission.

This situation continued despite all the appeals repeatedly adopted by those organizations, which were regularly presented to the Security Council and to the United Nations Secretariat in writing, and in person, by the Secretaries-General of those organizations, who came specifically for this purpose to United Nations Headquarters and the Security Council. Those decisions were adopted at the summit conferences of those organizations, represented by the Kings, Presidents, Emirs, and Heads of Government of the States members of those organizations. The statement of President Robert Mugabe, Chairman of the Organization of African Unity, before the Security Council on 25 September 1997 was but a reaffirmation of positions of the African Summit and the summits of all those organizations.

Also rejected by the United States and the United Kingdom were the demands and appeals of most of the families of the victims, who called for trying the two suspects in a neutral country. Libya alone observed the Charter of the United Nations, international conventions and covenants. Please do not forget that my country was born of this Organization, as Libya's independence was declared as a result of a United Nations resolution. Libya has accepted the proposals submitted by regional and international organizations, out of its limitless respect for those organizations, their leaders, their Governments and their peoples. On this occasion, we would like to renew our continued adherence to our commitments and our respect for all the offers we have previously agreed to. My country has fully responded to all relevant resolutions.

First, regarding so-called terrorism, if the file on terrorism is to be opened, we reserve the right to announce what is irrefutable. In this respect, the substance of our statements would cover all time, all human history and the breadth of the entire globe. We shall demonstrate how most peoples of the world, including the Libyan people, have been victims of terrorism. Some of these people, including Libyans, are still victims of terrorism. We can prove this irrefutably. We can even prove that the contemporary political problems of various countries and regions have been the creation, the product and the responsibility of those who now accuse us of terrorism.

Needless to say, the struggle for liberation against occupiers and colonialists is not terrorism. Liberation movements are not terrorist movements. Suffice it to say that those who accuse us of terrorism used to label those struggling for freedom terrorists, or guerrillas. Now, having liberated their countries, securing victories which are a source of happiness for us, they are recognized and welcomed, and red carpets are spread out for them. They are addressed by the titles they deserve, such as "Your Excellency" and "Your Highness". Political relations are established with them and ambassadors exchanged. Several ambassadors and delegates in this Organization were among those who struggled for liberty.

Libya has supported such people and stood by them, in the belief that this is its duty to them, and to the cause of freedom, as they fought against those who occupied and colonized their countries. They did not fight outside their countries. We also did that because they stood by our side and helped us when our country was colonized, and because they fought the hated racial discrimination exercised by the occupiers hailing from overseas. Now the whole world stands against racism, and we thank God very much for that. Thus, Libya has never supported terrorism but has assisted in the liberation struggle -- and there is a big difference between the two.

In full response to Security Council resolutions, and out of respect for the Council, Libya has undertaken the following:

First, Libya declared its condemnation of terrorism in all its forms and manifestations in several letters to the Secretary-General of the United Nations and the President of the Security Council, such as those contained in documents S/23396, S/24209, S/24961 and S/1994/900. Libya repeated this declaration at various levels of responsibility.

Secondly, Libya called for the convening of a special session of the General Assembly to consider the question of terrorism (A/46/840). Thirdly, Libya announced its readiness to formulate an agreement, or bilateral or multilateral agreements, which would define the methods required to eradicate international terrorism; it expressed its readiness to enter into bilateral or multilateral talks to achieve this end (S/23672).

Fourthly, Libya announced that it would never allow its territory, citizens, or institutions to be used in any form to commit terrorist acts, directly or indirectly, and expressed its readiness to punish severely those proved to be involved in such acts (S/23417).

Fifthly, Libya further declared that it had no objection to inquiries inside the Jamahiriya by the Secretary-General or one of his representatives in order to refute or confirm these claims, and committed itself to providing all facilities and information which the Secretary-General or his representative deemed necessary to uncover the truth (S/23672 and S/23417).

Sixthly, throughout the last six years my country has called on the Security Council and the Secretariat to send a committee, an envoy or envoys to ascertain the fact that my country had nothing to do with terrorism (S/26500, S/26760, S/1996/73, S/1996/609, S/1997/378, S/1997/503, S/1997/518, S/1997/549, S/1997/875, S/1997/880). Once more, it reiterates those calls.

Libya has categorically denied any link to the tragic Lockerbie incident and any knowledge by Libyan authorities of the culprits. Libya has affirmed its condemnation of international terrorism in all its forms and expressed the sympathy and solidarity of the Libyan people with the families of the victims of the incident (document S/23226). Libya has immediately and effectively responded to the requests of the British Government relating to the Irish Republican Army. The British Foreign Ministry notified the Security Council that Libya's replies to its queries regarding the Irish Republican Army were satisfactory and conformed to its expectations (document S/1995/973). Of course, we all know that the Irish Republican Army is present at 10 Downing Street and at Pennsylvania Avenue.

In addition to all that was stated with regard to the claims, offers, proposals and initiatives which were made, submitted or accepted by us, my country, out of its respect for this Council and in response to its resolutions, did the following:

First, it declared that, as a State, it had no objection to the two suspects' presenting themselves before a just and fair court, in a neutral country, and even urged the two suspects to do so (documents S/24961, S/26313 and S/26523).

Secondly, it urged the two suspects to agree to appear before a Scottish court in Scotland (documents S/26629 and S/26523). However, the two suspects categorically refused to do so because their defence lawyers advised them not to agree to a trial in the United Kingdom or the United States, since they had already been pre-condemned in those countries by the intensive and concentrated media coverage of the issue and statements made against them by officials of the two countries. Such a situation does not provide an environment suitable for a fair and just trial in accordance with human rights. The lawyers for the two suspects threatened to sue the Libyan State under local and international laws if it surrendered the two suspects against their will to either of the two States (document S/26629). It is noteworthy that the team of lawyers defending the two suspects includes two British subjects, one of whom is Scottish, and two American citizens.

Thirdly, my country has asked that the two suspects be accorded the same treatment accorded to American citizen Timothy McVeigh, the accused in the Oklahoma City bombing. Mr. McVeigh's trial venue was transferred from the state where the crime was committed to another -- Colorado -- because the environment of prior condemnation by public opinion in the place where the bombing occurred did not accord him his human right to a fair trial. Libya recalls that human rights have no nationality (S/1997/518).

What we have stated demonstrates that the sanctions the Security Council adopted in accordance with its resolutions 748 (1992) and 883 (1993) constitute collective punishment against the entire Libyan people as a result of nothing more than a mere suspicion against two of its citizens. As such, they represent a blatant violation of all international human rights instruments, which stipulate that punishment can be imposed only when an unlawful act has been perpetrated, when it has been proved by a fully independent and impartial investigation to have been committed and when the perpetrators have been tried and duly convicted by a fair and impartial court that considered the case in a fair and just manner.

The two Libyan citizens are mere suspects who have not been accused, interrogated, brought to trial or convicted by a court of law. Therefore, the sanctions imposed by the Security Council clearly violate article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which stipulates that an accused person is presumed innocent until proven guilty, to say nothing of the present case, which is based on no more than mere suspicion.

This is collective punishment against the entire Libyan people in a blatant violation of paragraph 2 of article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which stipulates that

"In no case may a people be deprived of its own means of subsistence." [General Assembly resolution 2200 (XXI), annex]

Thus, these sanctions violate the human rights of each and every individual Libyan, which have been guaranteed by the International Bill of Human Rights: the right of every person to an adequate standard of living for himself and his family; the right to be free from hunger; the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health; the right to education; the right to freedom of movement; and the right to work.

As a result of my country's strength of argument, sound reasoning, realism and flexibility in dealing with this issue, and its adherence from the start to the United Nations Charter, international conventions, agreements and law, it has received strong and firm support from the international community.

What is now left for the other party to say and what is its reasoning?

The other party says the following: that Libya knows what it has to do; that, so long as there are Security Council resolutions, Libya must implement them; that the problem is between Libya and the Security Council, and not between Libya and the United States and the United Kingdom; and that the two suspects would receive a just trial in Scotland and observers could be invited to attend the trial.

Allow me briefly to address these points. First, Libya has done everything that it knows should be done. As I mentioned earlier, Libya has responded to all demands addressed to it and has endeavoured in every way possible to find a solution to the dispute, despite the fact that it has always been sure of the innocence of its two citizens.

Secondly, as regards the implementation of the resolutions that have already been adopted, and despite our reservations about the manner in which they were adopted -- under the threat of armed military aggression; despite the fact that they were adopted as an alternative to such aggression in order to spare my country an evil greater than the worst resolutions, which entail damages less than those of a military aggression; and despite the fact that they were adopted in violation of the Charter, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya has responded in full to what was asked of it in accordance with these resolutions, as I have explained. Furthermore, all Security Council resolutions which were implemented, were carried out through negotiation and dialogue.

Thirdly, my country has affirmed, as confirmed by reality, by the two Judgments of the International Court of Justice, and as attested to by most members of the Council and the United Nations at large, that the problem is between my country and the United Kingdom and the United States, and not between my country and the Security Council. If their claims are true, why do they not leave the matter to us, the Libyans, and to the Council to try to find a solution to the question? And why do they continually hinder the work of the Council whenever it tries to consider it and find a solution? Why do they not observe the provisions of the Charter and abstain in the voting, since they are parties to the dispute? It is no justice at all that a party to the dispute be adversary, judge and jury at the same time through its membership in the Security Council and its well-known privileges in that Council, where the parties to the dispute act in violation and contradiction of Articles 27, 33 and 36 of the United Nations Charter.

Libya's observance of the Charter in all phases of this question confirms the extent of its dedication to and respect for the United Nations and all its organs, including the Security Council, and for international law. It also shows who does not respect the United Nations or its Security Council, Charter and covenants, and works by every means to manipulate them as tools in the service of their foreign policy, at the expense of the interests of the international community, and in violation of international law.

Fourthly, Libya has never cast doubt on the Scottish judiciary or Scottish law. It even sent an official letter to the Security Council in July 1997 confirming its appreciation of the deep-rooted history of Scottish law and judiciary (document S/1997/518). Moreover, Libya has urged the two Libyan suspects to appear before that judiciary. It has even accepted a trial for the two at the International Court of Justice in The Hague by Scottish judges, under Scottish law (document S/26523).

What was said about Scotland in the letters sent to the Security Council by the attorneys for the two suspects relates to the venue and has nothing to do with the judges or the law: Scotland offers a climate which would not be conducive to a just and fair trial in view of the media campaign and the statements of government officials (S/26629).

In this respect, we would recall that the trial of Timothy McVeigh was transferred from Oklahoma City to Denver, Colorado, not because of any challenge to the fairness of the judiciary or to the law in Oklahoma but because the place in which the crime was committed no longer provided the conditions needed for due process and a fair trial for the accused. Also, we should not forget that the case of the two Libyans is one of suspicion only. As for the observers, they would be mere spectators, like other spectators who watch a play or a movie, in that they cannot interfere in or influence its events or scenes. Even if such spectators have views, their views would only be like those of a play or movie critic.

After a long wait, the International Court of Justice, to which we resorted on 3 March 1992, rendered its Judgments against the other parties, which had challenged its jurisdiction. The two Judgments of the Court, which were rendered on Friday, 27 February 1998, contain principles relating to basic questions which can be summarized as follows: that there is a dispute between the parties in this case on the interpretation and application of the Montreal Convention of 23 September 1971; that the Court has jurisdiction, on the basis of article 14, paragraph 1, of the Convention; and that the requests of the Jamahiriya are admissible notwithstanding Security Council resolutions 748 (1992) and 883 (1993). On that basis, the Court rejected the objections to inadmissibility submitted by the United Kingdom and the United States of America. The Court also rejected the objection that the Libyan requests should be considered invalid and irrelevant following the adoption of the above-mentioned Security Council resolutions: the objection was immaterial in the circumstances of the case.

There is no denying that a new situation has arisen since the issuance of these two Judgments by the Court, which should be binding for all United Nations organs and their members given that, under Article 92 of the Charter, the Court is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations.

First, each Member of the United Nations should comply with the judgments of the Court in any case to which it is a party, pursuant to paragraph 1 of Article 94 of the Charter. Thus, the United Kingdom and the United States should be bound by the Court's decisions regarding their dispute with Libya over the interpretation and application of the 1971 Montreal Convention Libya; that the Court has jurisdiction in considering that dispute; and that the Security Council resolutions in question have no effect on the Libyan demands.

Secondly, on the other hand, a decision of the Court is binding on the parties in respect of the particular case on which the decision made, in accordance with Article 59 of the Statute of the Court. Under Article 60 of the Statute, a judgment is final and without appeal.

Thirdly, the Security Council may, if it deems necessary, make recommendations or decide upon measures to be taken to give effect to a judgment, in accordance with Article 94, paragraph 2, of the Charter. This means that even though both the Charter and the Statute confirm that each party to a dispute must comply with the decision of the Court, the Charter also gives the Security Council the power to adopt a resolution containing such measures as it deems necessary to give effect to a judgment, that is, to ensure that a judgment is binding on all Members of the United Nations in respect of the dispute on which the judgment was rendered.

In the light of these considerations, and in application of the legal norms to which I have referred, the following conclusions can be drawn.

First, the Lockerbie matter is a legal dispute between Libya, on the one hand, and the United States and the United Kingdom, on the other. The Court has jurisdiction over that dispute in accordance with the Charter and the Statute of the Court. This being the case, the parties to the dispute must comply with the two Judgments rendered by the Court in that respect. None of them may take unilateral or multilateral measures except through the Court. Since they are parties to the dispute, they must abstain in the voting on any decision or recommendation relating to it, in accordance with Article 27, paragraph 3, of the Charter.

Secondly, Members of the United Nations, parties to the Statute of the International Court of Justice, are bound by the provisions of the Charter relating to the Court and by the provisions of the Statute of that Court, especially with regard to the finality of the Court's judgments and their binding character on all parties to a dispute.

Thirdly, the Security Council must, by virtue of the provisions of the Charter, make the recommendations and take the measures needed to give effect to a judgment, whether or not it is requested to do so.

Fourthly, Libya, as a party to the dispute, has from the beginning taken all the steps needed to resolve it peacefully and has implemented all requests by international organizations, including the Security Council, in relation to it, except for those relating to the interpretation and application of the 1971 Montreal Convention, on which it resorted to the Court, as provided in Article 33 of the Charter and article 14, paragraph 1, of the Convention, and was vindicated by the Court.

Fifthly, the sanctions provided for in Security Council resolutions 748 (1992) and 883 (1993) have become irrelevant and moot since the Court has accepted jurisdiction in the matter on which the resolutions were based.

It is an established fact that Libya was the first to resort to the Court. The last two decades have witnessed several occasions on which Libya resorted to the Court in observance of the norms of international law and the Charter, in connection with the settlement of disputes by peaceful means and in accordance with the Statute of the Court and its rules of procedure. The judgments rendered by the Court never faced any difficulty or obstacles in their implementation. This behaviour has resulted in the stability of Libya's international relations, especially with neighbouring countries. When Libya resorted to the Court in the Lockerbie matter, it did so in implementation of a policy based on respect for the norms of international law, the Charter and the Statute of the Court, in spite of the injustice which was inflicted upon it and its neighbours by the unjust Security Council resolutions.

In the light of the above considerations relating to the background of the dispute, the Judgments of the Court open up prospects for achieving the basic purposes of the United Nations in respect of acting in accordance with the principles of law, justice and the peaceful settlement of disputes. These are the objectives which led, more than 50 years ago, to the inclusion in the Charter of the provisions relating to the establishment of the Court.

The Judgments of the Court enhance the initiatives of all the regional organizations concerned to achieve a just solution to a dispute whose legal character is very clear, in respect of which there is an international Convention, applicable to all parties to the dispute without exception, which provides the right framework for the settlement of the dispute.

Implementation of the Judgments of the Court, which are final and binding, as supported by the provisions of the Charter and the resolutions of the regional organizations concerned, makes it incumbent on the parties to the dispute and on members of the Security Council -- which must act in accordance with the purposes and principles of the United Nations and the provisions of the Charter in order for the Council's decisions to be acceptable and binding -- to deal with the question on the basis of a new vision for handling the dispute and its economic and humanitarian consequences, according to which, especially, the resolutions of the Security Council with regard to the maintenance of international peace and security are of a temporary and not an indefinite nature.

Sanctions have been imposed on Libya since 1992 within a framework and in accordance with a description of the dispute that were found by the principal judicial arm of the United Nations to be invalid. Since 1992 Libya's point of view has been that the disputes between it and the United States and the United Kingdom are legal disputes, and that application of the provisions of Article 36, paragraph 3, of the Charter make it incumbent on the Security Council in making its recommendations, as in resolution 731 (1992), to take into consideration the fact that legal disputes should be referred by the parties to the International Court of Justice. The Court has rendered its decision to this effect, that the Court has jurisdiction in that dispute and that Libya's application in this respect is acceptable to the Court.

For the sake of fruitful cooperation between the Court and the Security Council, the Council must take the necessary measures to give effect to the two Judgments rendered by the Court on 27 February 1998.

First, the Council should promptly and urgently refrain from renewing the sanctions imposed on the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya pursuant to resolutions 748 (1992) and 883 (1993).

Secondly, those two resolutions should be rescinded insofar as they relate to the imposition of sanctions on the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya.

Thirdly, the two cases before the International Court of Justice should be considered the only peaceful means for settling the dispute between the parties, and the Council should call on them not to take any unilateral or multilateral measures until the Court renders its final judgment.

Fourthly, as an interim measure, the Council should suspend implementation of the two resolutions insofar as they relate to the sanctions imposed against the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya.

The continued failure to suspend sanctions imposed on a whole people, indeed on the peoples of the entire region, for six years on the basis of a resolution which the Court has viewed as non-binding in respect of legal disputes -- in which the Council is not competent -- and on the basis of an erroneous procedure comes close to violating the 1948 genocide treaty. We are confident that everybody will abstain from participating in this violation of the law in this decade of respecting the law in relations between peoples.

Libya believes that these two Judgments by the International Court of Justice pave the way for a definitive settlement of the Lockerbie dispute and hereby declares once more its continued acceptance of the initiatives of international forums, including the League of Arab States, the Organization of African Unity, the Organization of the Islamic Conference and the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries, addressed to the Security Council with regard to settling the dispute and about which the Council was periodically informed, with a view to ensuring the effective implementation of international and national law. Libya most emphatically reasserts before the Security Council and the entire world that it was not responsible for the tragic destruction of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie and the horrendous loss of human life that resulted.

It is noteworthy that since the occurrence of the tragic event over Lockerbie, many books, articles and investigative reports have been issued, and many audio-visual recordings presented whose sources are both American and British which absolved Libya from responsibility for that event. The majority of those who prepared and published this material were from the United States and Britain. If the United States and the United Kingdom really believe in good faith that they actually possess circumstantial evidence of Libya's link to the incident, then those two States are obligated to bring their so-called evidence to the International Court of Justice, in accordance with the binding rules of international law and the normal practice for resolving serious legal disputes between sovereign and civilized States.

I should like to state publicly before the Council that my country was the first to come to the Security Council, upon the announcement of the indictment against its citizens on 16 November 1991 -- more than a month before the other parties contacted the Council, on 20 December 1991. Today, my country comes to the Council once again to ask for the implementation of the judgment of the Court. We do that out of respect for the Council and our keenness to preserve its credibility. We are hopeful that right will be established, the law upheld and the causes of the bitter suffering of our people eliminated, making it possible to get closer to a day when the suffering of the families of the victims of the tragic incident would end, too.

Before all present, my country would like to confirm that it still upholds the principles and consistent position it declared upon the evacuation of the military forces of both the United States of America and the United Kingdom from its territory in 1970, when we considered that a new page had been opened in our relations with both countries, and that we no longer had any problems with either of them. At that time, we called upon them to enter with us into an equal relationship based on mutual respect, non-interference in internal affairs and cooperation on an equal footing. We have not severed our relations with them. They did that unilaterally for no genuine reason. We have not interrupted our cooperation with them. They did so unilaterally without any real reason.

Today we renew our call to them to turn over a page that is no longer of any benefit to either of us, and open a new page in which we would exchange benefits, not accusations, within the framework of normal political and economic relations characterized by dialogue, not discord, and cooperation, not boycott.

We urge the Security Council to embark on a drastic review of the decisions it took in very critical circumstances against my country, taking into consideration what I have said in this statement and what the international community has incessantly called for -- the suspension of the resolutions referred to.

We pray to God to help us all in obeying what he said in the Holy Koran:

"We ... made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each other ... The most honoured of you in the sight of Allah is (he who is) the most righteous of you." [The Holy Koran, IL:13]

May the peace and blessings of God be upon you.

The President

I thank the Secretary of the General People's Committee for Foreign Liaison and International Cooperation of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya for the kind words he addressed to me.

Mr. Richardson (United States)

The United States appreciates the opportunity to participate in today's special meeting of the Security Council to lay out our case for justice. It was interesting to listen to the Foreign Minister of Libya. He makes what may seem to be a compelling argument. But, as the great American President John Adams once said, "Facts are stubborn things".

The United States welcomes this opportunity to publicly lay out the facts and set the record straight on this case.

Unfortunately we must begin with the events of nine years ago this past December, when a terrorist bomb blew Pan Am flight 103 out of the sky over the town of Lockerbie, Scotland. Two hundred and seventy innocent people from 21 countries, including 189 Americans, were killed that evening. Some of their family members are here in the gallery to witness this debate. Evidence of Libyan complicity in their untimely deaths and the subsequent search for justice is at the core of the sanctions against Libya and our discussions today.

I have listened to Libya and its supporters argue that sanctions are subjecting the Libyan people to widespread humanitarian suffering. I have listened to Libya complain that the mechanisms and procedures currently in place to deal with humanitarian issues are inadequate.

I have listened to Libya and its supporters argue that the recent ruling by the International Court of Justice requires that sanctions against Libya be suspended. Simply put, these assertions are false.

First, let me address the issue of the recent decision by the International Court of Justice. The rulings in no way question the legality of the Security Council's actions affecting Libya or the merits of the criminal cases against the two accused suspects.

The rulings of the Court involved technical, procedural issues. Contrary to the assertions of the Libyan Government, the Court is not calling for the review or suspension of Security Council resolutions. The Court has made clear that it was not dealing with the substance or the merits of the case.

In 1992 the International Court of Justice specifically rejected this interpretation of its review of Libya's claims. In reality, the Court has simply said that the parties must now argue the legal merits of the case. And while the case is proceeding, Libya must finally adhere to the will of the international community, comply with its obligation pursuant to Security Council decisions and turn over the two accused suspects for a fair trial.

Let me turn now to the claims of humanitarian suffering in Libya.

Today, Libya remains the wealthiest country in Africa on a per-capita basis. Immunization coverage for children is over 90 per cent. As the chart behind me demonstrates, Libya is importing more medical instruments today than it did prior to the imposition of sanctions. And a 1996 report on maternal and child health in Libya put forward by the Arab League and the Libyan Government states that

"Childhood mortality estimates reflect a steady decline, particularly during the last five years".

The fact is, United Nations sanctions against Libya are targeted sanctions, imposed to address aspects of Libyan involvement in international terrorism but specifically designed to prevent suffering among the Libyan people. These sanctions do not prohibit the importation of food, medicine or clothing. They do not close Libya's land or sea borders, and they do not prevent Libya from selling its oil on the open market.

In fact, Libyan oil production under sanctions remains steady. The income from this oil has fluctuated with the price of oil, but industry estimates conclude that in 1997, Libya earned nearly $10 billion from the sale of oil -- I repeat, $10 billion. So if Libya is suffering economically, it is certainly not because of United Nations sanctions.

The Libyan Government has claimed that United Nations sanctions hinder medical treatment for its people. Once again, the facts tell a different story. The sanctions regime has always permitted exceptions to the air embargo for approved medical evacuation flights. And as the Chairman of the sanctions Committee recently stated, procedures for approving these flights work well with Libyan cooperation and permit flights to be approved on very short notice, sometimes even within a matter of hours. In fact, the number of approved medical evacuation flights has increased every year since sanctions were imposed.

Finally, the Libyan Government has repeatedly and erroneously claimed that sanctions prevent Libyan pilgrims from making the Hajj to Saudi Arabia. The United States, as well as every member of the Security Council, has no intention or desire to prevent the Libyan people from fulfilling their religious obligations. For the past three years, the United States has supported sanctions Committee approval of direct flights from Libya to Jeddah on third-country aircraft for Libyan pilgrims. These flights have enabled all Libyan pilgrims, thousands of Libyans, to fly directly to the Hajj, a privilege that few other countries can provide. More Libyans have flown to the Hajj since sanctions than at any time before them; witness the chart once again.

Let me also say a few words about the Petrovsky report, which the Libyan Government claim buttresses their allegations of humanitarian suffering. The Petrovsky mission adhered to its mandate, which was simply to listen to Libyan views. It did not agree with, endorse, or confirm the claims of the Libyan Government. In fact, the report underlined that Libya has failed to respond to or take advantage of efforts by the United Nations to respond to its complaints.

Indeed, I would invite the Libyan representative to read the recent report put out by the Secretary-General evaluating the Scottish legal system.

This report concludes,

"that the accused would receive a fair trial under the Scottish judicial system. Their rights during the pre-trial, trial and post-trial proceedings would be protected in accordance with international standards. The presence of United Nations and other international observers can be fully and easily accommodated. A trial by jury would not prejudice the accused's right to a free trial." (S/1997/991, annex, part IX)

If Libya truly wants these sanctions lifted, its course of action is clear: surrender the two suspects so they can receive a fair trial in the appropriate criminal court. Regrettably, all the assertions made today by my Libyan colleague simply evade the main issue at hand, and that is the search for justice.

We are not here today because of United Nations sanctions, and not because of the simply absurd notion that the United States seeks the permanent imposition of sanctions against Libya.

We are here today because, six years ago, following two of the most extensive -- extensive -- criminal investigations ever undertaken, compelling evidence was presented to indicate that Libyan intelligence operatives placed the bombs that destroyed Pan Am flight 103 and Union de transports aerens (UTA) flight 772. The international community condemned these horrific acts of terrorism and imposed sanctions upon Libya so that the men responsible would soon be brought to justice. Six years later, we are still waiting.

My Government does not enjoy this situation. It is not our goal to see Libya reduced to an international pariah. In fact, we look forward to the day when these sanctions can be removed and Libya once again is a member in good standing of the international community.

But that day cannot and will not come until the victims of Pan Am 103 and UTA 772 receive the justice -- the justice -- that they so richly deserve.

Mr. Berrocal Soto (Costa Rica)

I congratulate you, Sir, on the way in which you are conducting our important debates today.

The subject that is today before the Security Council undoubtedly has many facets and implications in the realm of political realities and in the legal field and that of international legality.

Given this profound complexity, my country is not prepared to provide a complete and definitive answer to all the questions before us. Nonetheless, on two essential aspects of our debate today the position of Costa Rica will always be one of principle, consistent with the letter and the spirit of the Charter of the United Nations.

First, in connection with the sanctions regime, whether it be this case of Libya or any other State made subject by the Security Council to the provisions of Articles 39 and 41 of the Charter in this matter, Costa Rica has stated on a number of occasions that, although we accept the principle that sanctions are a means of collective defence for international society, recognized and established in the Charter, the regime established must be carefully designed to meet the all-important objective of changing the illegal policies of a given Government. This and nothing but this is the objective of the sanctions. And from this standpoint, therefore, the sanctions -- which must always be time-limited -- must not under any circumstance become a form of punishment for the innocent civilian population and must always be interpreted in a restricted manner in the context of an overall humanitarian approach. Moreover, any sanctions regime must be accompanied by active and on-going dialogue among the parties in order to ease the way for the State that is subject to sanctions to change and modify its illegal policies and thus be reincorporated, when its new conduct is clearly established before the Security Council, into the international community as a full member under the terms of the United Nations Charter.

This is Costa Rica's position of principle, which we have always affirmed and defended before the Security Council and in the sanctions committees -- although, obviously, the foundations and the objective facts of every situation and of every sanctions regime are different, whether it may apply to Iraq, Sierra Leone, Liberia, Somalia, Angola or Rwanda. And this is also the position of principle in the specific case of Libya.

Secondly, Costa Rica has always advocated the effective implementation of the guarantees established in Articles 31 and 32 of the United Nations Charter, particularly when these guarantees involve or are related to a debate at a formal meeting of the Security Council to consider situations contemplated by and authorized under Articles 39 and 41 of Chapter VII of the Charter. This is also a strict position of principle of my country, in keeping with something that is an essential value of our democratic concept of international society and in strict compliance with the letter and, at the same time, the spirit of the Charter.

This being the case, this debate and this formal meeting constitute a step forward in what is a demand of all Member States regarding the necessary and vital transparency in the working methods and in the rules, both written and unwritten, of the Security Council. As we say this, Costa Rica cannot fail to note that, in this way, the sole winners are the legitimacy and the international legality represented by the United Nations Charter.

Therefore my country is pleased that this formal meeting of the Security Council is taking place. Libya and any other State subject to a sanctions regime, as well as the other parties that are legitimately concerned or affected by any international dispute, have the right to present their own argumentations concerning the facts, their own legal reasoning and their own defence. For its part, the Security Council and the sanctions Committees, within their own purview, have the legal, ethical and political obligation to hear them and to reflect upon and analyse objectively their arguments and reasoning in order to take a decision in full consistency with their lofty and very serious responsibilities established in Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter.

My country attaches the utmost importance to and recognizes the seriousness of the substantive arguments and the legal assertions of the United Kingdom and the United States in connection with the criminal terrorist attack on Pan Am flight 103, and the same applies to UTA flight 772 and the position of France.

We have said, and we want to reiterate, that under no circumstances can we forget that at the origin of this sanctions regime are two unjustifiable criminal terrorist acts committed against two commercial flights that took the lives of 441 innocent people and caused pain and suffering to thousands of relatives. These two ignominious acts are unprecedented in the history of civil aviation and constitute an attack on the values of civilized human coexistence. In the face of the gravity of these acts, the international community, represented by the United Nations, must take a clear and unequivocal stance so that the criminals are tried and justice is done. Any other attitude would constitute unacceptable complacency regarding international terrorism.

The minute of silence that we observed in this Chamber was a way of reaching out to and showing respect for the victims and their family members, but at the same time, it was a firm expression of that determination on the part of the Security Council.

During the informal consultations held a few days ago, in reviewing the terms of the sanctions established in resolutions 748 (1992) and 883 (1993), the Security Council, although it noted some progress in the situation and took note of new facts that must be considered and evaluated objectively, concluded unanimously that the sanctions regime imposed on Libya must be maintained and extended for another 120 days. That is Costa Rica's substantive position.

At this formal meeting we have listened with the greatest attention to the substantive arguments and legal viewpoints of the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Libya. Likewise, for some days now we have been considering and studying the two Judgments of the International Court of Justice of 27 February in connection with the Montreal Convention and its possible implications in this case. In addition, as an important reference document, mention must be made of the report of Mr. Dumbutshena and Mr. Schermers regarding the Scottish judicial system, dated 18 December 1997.

My country attaches great importance to the views of the Organization of African Unity, the League of Arab States and the Non-Aligned Movement. Likewise, we will be listening with the utmost attention to the views and opinions of all States that take the floor at this meeting of the Security Council in accordance with their indisputable right under Article 31 of the Charter.

All these views must be analysed carefully. In particular, the analysis of the actual scope of the recent Judgments of the International Court of Justice on procedural aspects, and not on the substance of the dispute, is undoubtedly a legal element that will have implications for the further review that will have to be conducted by the Security Council in the coming months under the agreed terms.

It is also necessary to point out that the Government of Libya, with the support of the Organization of African Unity, has submitted for the consideration of the international community a number of jurisdictional options, and this is undoubtedly an element of objective importance. My country, which has emphatically indicated that it fully recognizes the jurisdiction of the Scottish courts as the natural and logical framework in which these tragic and criminal events must be judged, nonetheless recognizes that this willingness on the part of the Libyan authorities must be taken into account, and that perhaps through this channel and with the support of the Secretariat, it may be possible to specify, develop and elaborate a constructive dialogue in order to resolve the substantive problem of jurisdiction and the relevant laws.

In any event, the existence of all these elements and the holding of this formal meeting of the Security Council demonstrate that we could be emerging from the stagnation of the past several years and that it may not be overly optimistic to think that through dialogue and diplomatic negotiation solutions can be found in order to make progress and achieve the essential objective of these sanctions, which is only to subject the alleged criminals to the rule of law and thus to do justice to the innocent victims of the terrorist attack at Lockerbie and of the UTA flight over the Niger. My country once again expresses its complete willingness to cooperate fully for the attainment of this objective of the Security Council.

The President

I thank the representative of Costa Rica for the kind words he addressed to me.

Mr. Lavrov (Russia)

Since the imposition of sanctions against Libya, the Libyan Government has made significant progress in responding to the demands of the Security Council. I refer primarily to the provisions of resolutions 731 (1992) and 748 (1992) regarding the problem of terrorism and the submission of information on this topic. Thanks to Libya's cooperation, the investigation into the incident involving UTA flight 772 has been successfully completed. The statement just made by the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Libya, Mr. Muntasser, stressed Libya's willingness to continue to cooperate with the United Nations. However, the resolutions of the Security Council have not yet been fully implemented. The situation regarding the Lockerbie case remains deadlocked.

The League of Arab States, the Organization of the Islamic Conference, the Organization of African Unity and the Non-Aligned Movement have put forward well-known initiatives for a compromise format for the holding of the trial of the two suspects. We feel that these initiatives are on the right track. The recent Judgments of the International Court of Justice about its jurisdiction provide additional material for an analysis of the legal aspects of the Lockerbie case. We call upon the parties to show maximum goodwill to find mutually acceptable solutions regarding the question of the format for the trial.

The Security Council and the United Nations as a whole have repeatedly proven their ability to seek compliance with United Nations decisions by showing firmness on the substance of their demands and flexibility in the methods of attaining the goal. A speedy resolution to the Lockerbie case would be of great importance for United Nations efforts in combating the scourge of terrorism, which the Russian Federation is constantly committed to eradicating.

The families of those who perished in the skies over Lockerbie, whose memory we honoured today in our minute of silence, also await the trial for justice. We pay tribute to the patience of the relatives of the victims of the catastrophe and reiterate to them our most profound sympathy. Nor should we forget the people of Libya, who for many years now have suffered under sanctions. Russia has consistently held that sanctions are not an aim in themselves, nor are they a weapon to punish unpalatable regimes, but a means to support political efforts aimed at attaining a settlement of a given conflict. The process of imposing, implementing, easing and, if necessary, tightening sanctions should be closely and flexibly linked to the political process. Unfortunately, in the Lockerbie matter, this is not the case.

The serious humanitarian consequences of sanctions for the Libyan people are attested to by the recent report on the results of the mission of the Under-Secretary-General, Mr. Petrovsky, which indicates, at least to us, the need to create humanitarian exemptions to the sanctions regime. The consideration of this report in the sanctions Committee, started on the instructions of the Security Council, should lead to the elaboration of recommendations on measures to reduce the negative humanitarian consequences of sanctions, particularly in the light of the serious damage done to the public health system, including to the supply of medicines and provision of medical assistance to the people as well as to the services sector and to agriculture.

The Russian delegation believes that the findings of the report give sufficient grounds now to discuss the adoption by the Security Council of humanitarian exemptions to the sanctions regime. Primarily, we might consider a simplified plan for medical evacuation according to the simple notification procedure, given the fact that in the receiving countries there is a well-honed system which monitors medical flights from Libya.

It is high time to replace the four aging Libyan planes authorized for medical evacuation purposes, as their use poses a serious threat to the safety of the flights. Restrictions should also be lifted on the import of spare parts for agricultural aircraft, which is necessary for supplying food to broad strata of the civilian population.

One of the most striking examples of the need for humanitarian exemptions, and not only in the case of Libya, are the pilgrimage flights. Given the approaching Hajj season, this step would emphasize the willingness of the Security Council to respect religious feelings and respond to the specific humanitarian needs of the population of individual States under a sanctions regime. The recently issued sanctions Committee press release contains the obligation of the members of the Committee to consider all these questions. This obligation must be complied with.

The Security Council must give an adequate reaction to the positive steps already undertaken by Libya to comply with the appropriate decisions of the United Nations. While appealing again to the parties to speedily attain a compromise on the basis of the Security Council resolutions, we are, at the same time, in favour of the immediate entry into force of the humanitarian exemptions I listed before. We hope that all our partners will be prepared to work constructively in this area, both within the Council and in the sanctions Committee.

The President

I thank the representative of the Russian Federation for his kind words addressed to me.

Mr. Qin Huasun (China)

The Chinese delegation welcomes the Security Council's open meeting today to consider the question of Libya. We also would like to welcome the Foreign Minister of Libya to our meeting. We have listened to his statement carefully.

The Security Council is the main United Nations organ for maintaining international peace and security. Since the Council acts on behalf of the entire membership, in accordance with the Charter, it should listen to the broad range of views of Member States while deliberating on the question of Libya. This meeting is a good opportunity for the Council to do that.

The Chinese Government's position is clear cut. China is opposed to terrorism in any form and is of the view that terrorists should be brought to justice. The tragic accident over Lockerbie resulted in the death of innocent passengers and inflicted agonizing pain on their families, who have our deepest sympathy. The priority now is to settle the case in a prompt and proper manner because this will be beneficial to all parties concerned, including families of the victims.

The key to resolving the Lockerbie case is for the parties concerned to agree at an early date on the venue and method of the trial of the two suspects. In this regard, we are pleased to note that the League of Arab States and the Organization of African Unity (OAU) have put forward three options concerning questions about the trial. Libya has agreed to the trial by Scottish judges at The Hague in accordance with Scottish law. We support these proposals, which are constructive and reflect the flexibility of the parties concerned. We hope that other parties will also show flexibility by responding to these proposals and moving to resolve the Lockerbie question through negotiations as soon as possible.

We have taken note of the recent decision of the International Court of Justice to accept the Lockerbie case. This is a positive decision. We support the settlement of the issue through peaceful means, including legal procedures.

The sanctions against Libya have brought untold suffering to the Libyan people, especially to the women and children. They have undermined the development of Libya and have affected the economic development of third world countries. We are gravely concerned about the adverse effects of the sanctions. Facts have proven that sanctions, rather than solving the problem, only aggravate matters. In our view, they should be lifted as soon as possible.

We support the reasonable request raised by the League of Arab States and the OAU on numerous occasions to lift the sanctions against Libya at an early date. The League of Arab States, the OAU and other Member States will address the Council today. We are convinced that their opinions will help the Council in making a correct judgment and decision in its future deliberations on the question of Libya.

The Secretary-General recently sent a fact-finding mission to Libya to look into the negative impact of the sanctions. This is very useful. The mission report is essentially an accurate account of the situation there. We are of the view that the Security Council and its sanctions Committee should consider it seriously and take measures to ease the situation.

Mr. Monteiro (Portugal)

My delegation is very pleased to see you, Sir, presiding over our debate here today.

Let me begin by paying my profound respects to the families of the victims of the bombings of the Pan Am and UTA flights, who are still waiting for justice to be done. We must not forget the reason why measures were imposed on Libya by the Security Council nor their goal of delivering justice to those directly affected by those horrendous acts. The Council measures remain in force because Libya has not yet complied with its obligations under the relevant Council resolutions by submitting to the appropriate jurisdiction the two individuals accused of those crimes.

My delegation welcomes the fact that this problem is being discussed here at this open debate of the Security Council, permitting all United Nations Members to express their views on the matter.

Portugal supported this initiative from the very beginning. We believe that it is not only an effort to enhance the transparency of the working methods of the Council and its democratic exposure to the views of the general membership of our Organization. More importantly, we believe that it is also a way of contributing to a better general understanding of the matter under consideration. Furthermore, we also believe that it is an appropriate manner of allowing Libya itself to put forward its position before the Council as, according to the Charter, it is entitled to do.

The crux of this question -- which should not be seen as a dispute between Libya, on the one hand, and the United Kingdom and the United States of America, on the other -- lies in the fact that Tripoli has so far refused to surrender the two Libyan citizens suspected of the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 to a trial in a United Kingdom or a United States court, as demanded by the relevant Security Council resolutions. Therefore, this is a confrontation that pits Libya against the Security Council.

We have considered all the arguments put forward by the Libyan authorities and, in particular, we listened attentively to the statement made here today by the Secretary of the General People's Committee for Foreign Liaison and International Cooperation of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya. In this respect, my delegation would like to make the following remarks.

While we register and welcome the concern shown by the Libyan authorities for the human rights of the two suspects, we cannot accept the argument that a Scottish court does not offer guarantees of impartiality and fair trial. According to the conclusions of the report on the Scottish judicial system submitted by the representatives of the Secretary-General sent to Scotland, Mr. Dumbutshena and Mr. Schermers,

"the accused would receive a fair trial under the Scottish judicial system. Their rights would be protected ... in accordance with international standards. The presence of United Nations and other international observers can be fully and easily accommodated." [S/1997/991, p. 15]

We note that the British authorities have already indicated that they will accept international observation of the trial.

Furthermore, we would like to point out that the human rights of the suspects are doubly guaranteed in a trial in Scotland, since a decision by a British court is subject to the control of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, under the European Convention on Human Rights.

Based on the recent decisions of the International Court of Justice, Libya claims that the Security Council should suspend its own resolutions on this matter. We have carefully studied the Court's decisions and have come to the conclusion that these decisions change nothing on the substance of the matter. They merely address preliminary, procedural questions and do not decide on the merits of the case. And, obviously, they do not question the validity of the relevant resolutions of the Security Council. My delegation thinks that the Council and the entire United Nations membership cannot, evidently, accept these claims by Libya.

We all know that sanctions are a means of pressure to compel States to abide by international law and fulfil their obligations, as required by Security Council resolutions. But we also believe that these sanctions are hurting everyone in Libya, both economically and psychologically, and are not just targeted at those who are responsible for Libya's refusal to comply with Security Council demands.

The report of the fact-finding mission sent to Libya by the Secretary-General, headed by Director-General Petrovsky -- and we thank the Secretary-General for this initiative and Mr. Petrovsky and his team for the mission they undertook -- reflects the fact that the Libyan people are being affected by the sanctions regime. But the report also shows that the Libyan authorities are not making use of the appropriate mechanisms established by the Council and the sanctions Committee to address the consequences of the sanctions, namely, those affecting vulnerable groups or the health sector. Paragraphs 7 and 11 of the report are very clear in this respect.

I take this opportunity to acknowledge the determination of the sanctions Committee on Libya to continue to pay special attention to all humanitarian issues arising under the relevant Security Council resolutions and to respond promptly to requests for humanitarian exceptions within the scope of its authority. My delegation will spare no effort to support the activities and decisions of the Committee in this regard.

Portugal has noted the proposals put forward by the Organization of African Unity and the League of Arab States, which are certainly meant to be a constructive political effort to find a compromise solution which will delay justice no longer and will put an end to the suffering of the Libyan people. But any compromise solution must not, in our view, depart from the crucial legal and political aspects enshrined in the relevant Security Council resolutions. This is clearly what international law demands. And Libya, like any other United Nations Member, must comply with it.

Like others, we believe that, indeed, justice delayed is justice denied -- first of all, to the relatives of the victims who have suffered the loss of their loved ones. Justice delayed is justice denied also to the international community, which is defending itself against terrorism and upholding international law. Finally, justice delayed is justice denied also to the innocent people of Libya, who are enduring sanctions imposed on their country and are thus kept as hostages to the will of those two individuals accused of terrorism who refuse to surrender to trial.

The time has come for the United Nations, and the Security Council in particular, to think of more efficient ways to bring Libya into compliance. In this context, Portugal believes that the Secretary-General's assistance can be of great value.

My delegation is aware of the positive statements and steps undertaken by Libya regarding the repudiation of terrorism in all its forms. We welcome the cooperation which the Libyan Government has extended to the French and British judicial authorities in this regard. These steps should ultimately lead to the full cooperation that the Council is seeking from Libya.

Portugal joins other voices here today that appeal to the Libyan authorities to cooperate fully with the Council and to fulfil their obligations promptly. This is the way to render justice to the families of the victims; the way to ensure a fair trial for the accused themselves; and also the way to enable the Council to lift the sanctions affecting the Libyan people.

The President

I thank the representative of Portugal for his kind words addressed to me.

Mr. Mahugu (Kenya)

At the outset, let me take this opportunity to recognize the presence of the families of those who perished in the tragic destruction of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, on 21 December 1988. Their presence here today is a telling reminder of the work we still have to do to truly lay the souls of their loved ones to rest in peace. I sadly recall the statement of condolence my Government issued on behalf of all Kenyans during that time of pain, and today I can still, with a heavy heart again, convey to them these genuine expressions of sorrow.

This debate today affords us an excellent opportunity to look again at what needs to be done to ease the pain that the families of the bereaved must be feeling. We think that much has been said in the past and much will continue to be said. But we need to look into the future and act -- act with a resolve tempered by the reality that our decisions will affect the lives of the bereaved families and the innocent people of Libya suffering under the unyielding heel of sanctions. We are honoured in this connection to recognize the presence in our midst of Mr. Omar Muntasser, the Foreign Minister of Libya.

We have listened carefully to the views and positions presented to us by previous speakers. The impressive eloquence outlining known positions, juxtaposed against the silent presence of the bereaved families and the unheard cries of sick children in Libya, convinces my delegation even more that the time for rhetoric is over and that the time for a genuine and soul-searching give-and-take has come.

Fourteen days ago, when the Security Council reviewed the sanctions imposed on Libya by Security Council resolution 748 (1992), the Kenyan delegation tried to balance the two competing but equally important realities in this case. On the one hand, an act of terror was committed causing immense anguish and suffering to many people, but especially to the families of the victims of that tragic incident. On the other hand, we have in place a sanctions regime designed to bring the culprits to book but which has failed to do so. The time may have come to take stock of how much has been achieved in real terms since the sanctions were imposed.

Kenya firmly believes that the families of the victims must be allowed to put this tragedy behind them, with the perpetrators of this terrorist act being brought to book, and must receive complete restitution too. We also firmly believe that the innocent people of Libya, who had nothing to do with this heinous crime and who have nothing to do with the current impasse, should be relieved of the suffering the sanctions have caused them.

In this regard, we commend the skilful work being done by the Chairman of the Libya sanctions Committee, Ambassador Danilo Türk of Slovenia. By drawing on elements of the now well-known Petrovsky report, which is a result of the Secretary-General's fact-finding mission to assess the humanitarian impact of sanctions on the people of Libya, Mr. Türk has begun to make progress. We think that the Petrovsky report, taken together with existing studies by United Nations agencies and other international organizations, is a useful framework for addressing the impact of sanctions. We urge the Chairman to continue working expeditiously to achieve more progress.

How can we move this process forward? We need to do so quickly so that we do not delay justice, bearing in mind that justice delayed is justice denied. There is no one single simple answer. We are faced with a very complex legal and political issue. We believe that we can work together to find a way to address this very tragic issue.

All has not been in vain; there have been some positive results. The Government of Libya has responded positively to some of the demands made of it by the international community. Security Council documents refer to two such cases, cooperation on the Irish Republican Army matter and cooperation on the UTA 772 incident. On the outstanding issues, recently there have been attempts by several organizations which have offered various options towards resolving this problem. The League of Arab States came up with options which were supported by the Organization of African Unity (OAU), the Organization of the Islamic Conference and the Non-Aligned Movement.

The Harare Declaration of June 1997, issued following the thirty-third ordinary session of the Assembly of Heads of State and Government of the Organization of African Unity recommended three options. The first option is to try the two suspects in a third, neutral country to be determined the Security Council; the second is to have the suspects tried by Scottish judges at The Hague in accordance with Scottish law; and the third is to establish a special criminal tribunal at the International Court of Justice to try the two suspects.

On 27 February 1998 the Council of Ministers of the Organization of African Unity at its sixty-seventh meeting urged the States concerned

"to take specific action to ensure a rapid and definitive settlement of the dispute"

and appealed to the Security Council to lift as a matter of urgency the sanctions imposed. Kenya reiterates this urgent appeal to resolve this impasse.

Coincidentally, the International Court of Justice ruling on one aspect of this matter was read on the same day, 27 February 1998. This may be a good omen portending an amicable and lasting solution to this matter.

The Judgment held that there was a dispute relating to the Montreal Convention which could be decided by the Court. The Court said that both the jurisdiction of the Court and the admissibility of any claim must be determined at the moment Libya's claims were first filed. We realize that if any changes are to be introduced to the conditions originally set by the Security Council, they must be acceptable to all the parties to the dispute. However, this may not be the case: there are two interpretations.

The first view is that the Judgment was on preliminary jurisdictional issues, with the Court not having pronounced itself on the merits of Libya's claims in any way. The Court held that it had jurisdiction to determine, under the Montreal Convention, whether the two Governments' demands for surrender of the accused were or were not in breach of Libya's rights under that Convention.

The second and opposing view is that there is a dispute between the parties in this case on the interpretation and application of the Montreal Convention, and that the Court has jurisdiction over the dispute on the basis of article 14, paragraph 1, of the Convention.

As a member of the OAU and having fully participated in the deliberations that formulated the OAU position, we strongly feel that that position provides clear options for resolving the stalemate that we are faced with today. We urge the States directly involved in this dispute to give serious and urgent consideration to the proposals put forward by the OAU and other regional bodies. In this regard, we wish to re-emphasize the need for the parties directly concerned to take specific action to ensure a rapid and definitive settlement of the dispute. Frankly, we are encouraged by the tone of the views expressed here today and hope that a positive dialogue is not too far away.

I conclude, as I began, by embracing the sorrow of the bereaved families and empathizing with the suffering of the innocent people of Libya, who committed no crime but are hurting nonetheless.

The President

I thank the representative of Kenya for his kind words expressed to me.

Mr. Buallay (Bahrain)

Since the two terrorist attacks on an American and a French civilian aircraft in 1988 and 1989, Libya has suffered from sanctions imposed on it by the Security Council under resolutions 731 (1992), 748 (1992) and 883 (1993) on the grounds that two of its nationals were suspected of committing the attacks.

The first resolution asks Libya to cooperate in establishing responsibility, while the second refers to the well-foundedness of the sanctions, calling on Libya to renounce terrorism. The third asks Libya to hand over the two suspects to the judicial authorities of the United States, the United Kingdom and France.

The third resolution also decides that the sanctions should be reviewed every four months. The sanctions include prohibition of civilian flights abroad, freezing of Libyan assets, imposition of diplomatic restrictions and a prohibition on the export and import of certain articles and items of equipment, excluding oil and related products.

It is clear that the two terrorist attacks are a criminal matter that only a court can decide, but the Security Council decided to deal with the issue on its own, feeling that, as the sixth preambular paragraph of resolution 883 (1993) indicates, that this matter was a threat to international peace and security. This opinion was not shared by Libya, which brought the matter before the International Court of Justice for a decision.

Despite the objections raised by the other parties and despite the fact that sanctions had been in place since the adoption of resolution 748 (1992), the International Court of Justice, on 27 February 1998, handed down a Judgment declaring itself competent, under the 1971 Montreal Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Civil Aviation, to have jurisdiction. This Judgment by the International Court of Justice is, of course, a procedural Judgment. But, like any other tribunal, this Court takes a decision first on its competence and then considers the substance of a matter. Since its Statute is an integral part of the Charter of the United Nations, and since it is the judicial organ of this Organization, as provided under Article 92 of the Charter, the fact that it decides on competence gives a new turn to the issue that is now before us. This places the matter once again in the hands of the authority that is in the best position to decide on it.

The three resolutions of the Security Council are thus political in nature, while the Judgment of the Court is judicial in nature and the latter has characterized the dispute as a judicial one rather than a political one. Therefore, the Security Council would have been expected to take into account this new and logical turn that the situation has taken when it conducted its eighteenth review of sanctions on 6 March last. Unfortunately, this was not the case, in spite of the five years and 351 days elapsed since the sanctions were imposed on Libya.

The Judgment of the International Court of Justice, which confirms its competence in this connection, logically requires that the Security Council consider the suspension of sanctions, at least until the Court takes a decision on the substance of the matter. The harmful effects of these sanctions in the long term have begun to be felt by the Libyan people in spite of Libya's oil riches. We can even go so far as to say that in spite of the presence of these riches, the Libyan authorities are completely unable to ensure air transport for their pilgrims or to ensure the emergency evacuation of sick people who need immediate health care abroad. And this, of course, has a considerable psychological effect on the population.

By way of evidence, I might mention paragraph 15 of the report of Mr. Vladimir Petrovsky, who was sent by the Secretary-General of the United Nations to conduct a fact-finding mission to Libya from 13 to 18 December 1997. This paragraph refers to the psychological effects of the sanctions:

"It was apparent that the sanctions had a psychological effect on the Libyan leadership. It feels isolated, targeted and unjustly subjected to a form of collective punishment even before the guilt or innocence of the two suspects had been established through an appropriate judicial process. The Libyan officials underscored that the stigma of a rogue State was hurting the people at large, and the damage to national pride has been grave. They noted that the psychological impact also constrained other countries from dealing with the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya in areas outside the purview of the sanctions. They also seemed perplexed that the initiatives and alternatives proposed by the Organization of African Unity and the League of Arab States, among others, to facilitate a resolution of the problem were not accepted by the Security Council." [S/1998/201, annex, para. 15]

Even before the International Court of Justice handed down its Judgment, which pointed to the normal framework for resolving this problem, many international and regional initiatives had taken that direction. But when the Court declared itself competent, these initiatives were stepped up, and in fact 21 letters were addressed to the President of the Security Council on this subject.

As for the substance of the issue, not only does this matter come under the purview of the Montreal Convention -- hence the International Court of Justice's decision that it is competent to hear the case -- but other regional and international organizations, such as the League of Arab States, the Organization of African Unity, the Organization of the Islamic Conference and the Non-Aligned Movement, also submitted the following three options, which take into consideration the rights of all parties: first, to hold the trial of the two suspects in a neutral country to be determined by the Security Council; secondly, to have the two suspects tried at the International Court of Justice by Scottish judges in accordance with Scottish law; and thirdly, to establish a special criminal tribunal at the Court's headquarters at The Hague to try the two suspects.

These are the options that will undoubtedly make it possible rapidly to take a decision on this matter. They will help shed light on the entire matter for the benefit of the families of the victims and in connection with lifting the sanctions on Libya. These options also ask Libya to cooperate and to respond favourably, in accordance with Security Council resolution 731 (1992). Since the other two resolutions -- 748 (1992) and 883 (1993) -- imposed sanctions after the matter was brought by Libya to the International Court of Justice and not before, they are not justified.

My delegation believes that the Security Council must re-examine the sanctions decreed against Libya because of the new factors in the case: the Judgment handed down by the International Court of Justice and the options submitted on this matter, which is legal in nature and not political. The Council should respond by decreeing a suspension of these sanctions until a ruling is handed down.

As for the travel of Libyan nationals to fulfil their religious obligations or to receive medical care abroad, neither the principles of monotheistic religions nor humanitarian considerations can tolerate any obstacle. That is why it is difficult to approve of the current procedures of the sanctions Committee, which consist of examining requests on a case-by-case basis. Rather, it is necessary to completely exempt pilgrimage and medical care from these sanctions. Any believer must turn to God and God alone in order to fulfil religious obligations, and no believer can compromise on his or her health, because without health, nothing is possible in this world.

The President

I thank the representative of Bahrain for the kind words he addressed to me.

Mr. Owada (Japan)

The Security Council, at one of its information consultations on 6 March 1998, concluded the eighteenth review of the sanctions imposed on Libya in accordance with paragraph 13 of resolution 748 (1992). While it was concluded as a result of this review that there was no agreement for modifying the sanctions regime on Libya, it was at the same time decided that the Council would hold a formal meeting today on the question of Libya. Japan welcomes this formal meeting, which provides an opportunity for Member States to express their basic views on this question at this juncture.

As a starting point, the Government of Japan wishes to restate its basic position regarding the cases of the destruction of Pan Am flight 103 and of UTA flight 772 and then to proceed to present its views on the current state of the problems in the context of the actions taken by the Council, as well as of the recent decisions made by the International Court of Justice.

On 21 December 1988, Pan Am flight 103 exploded and crashed over Lockerbie in Scotland. There were 270 victims, which included a Japanese national. On 19 September 1989, another incident, in which UTA flight 772, flying over the Niger, was the victim, resulting in the tragic deaths of 170 people. These cases have been deemed to be the result of abominable criminal acts that should deserve our strongest condemnation. My delegation would like to take this opportunity to express its sincere condolences to the families of the victims of these two tragedies.

The Government of Japan, through the official spokesman of the Foreign Ministry on 3 December 1991, made a public statement condemning these acts and called upon the Libyan Government to cooperate fully with the investigation of the destruction of Pan Am flight 103 in response to requests from the Governments of the United Kingdom and of the United States. The statement further declared that Japan was absolutely opposed to any form of terrorism and that if this tragedy were revealed to be a result of terrorist acts, it must denounce such acts strongly. On the same day the Government of Japan conveyed this message on the case to the Libyan Government through the representative of Libya in Tokyo. Since then this call of the Japanese Government for Libyan cooperation has repeatedly been conveyed to the Libyan Government on a number of occasions, both prior to and after the adoption of Security Council resolution 731 (1992) on 21 January 1992. These Japanese calls upon the Libyan Government have been made in compliance with paragraph 5 of that resolution.

In sum, the basic position of the Japanese Government on this case is that the issues arising from the two incidents have to be resolved through bringing the culprits of these acts to justice and through intensified efforts by the international community to eliminate international terrorism.

Since the occurrence of these tragic incidents, the Security Council has taken a series of actions on behalf of the international community in an effort to tackle the issues arising from these incidents in accordance with its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security under the Charter. These actions are an important part of the united effort of the international community to suppress international terrorism and to pursue justice. Thus, on 30 December 1988 the President of the Security Council made a statement strongly condemning the destruction of Pan Am flight 103 and calling on all States to assist in the apprehension and prosecution of those responsible for this criminal act. Then, on 21 January 1992, the Council adopted resolution 731 (1992) expressing the Council's deep concern over acts of international terrorism and illegal activities directed against international civil aviation, and urging the Libya Government

"immediately to provide a full and effective response" [resolution 731 (1992), para. 3]

to its obligations under that resolution.

Unfortunately, the Libyan Government did not provide a full and effective response to the requests in resolution 731 (1992). Under these circumstances, the Security Council, in adopting resolution 748 (1992) of 31 March 1992 determined

"that the failure of the Libyan Government to demonstrate by concrete actions its renunciation of terrorism and in particular its continued failure to respond fully and effectively to the requests of resolution 731 (1992) constitute a threat to international peace and security". [resolution 748 (1992), seventh preambular paragraph]

The Council decided to take sanction measures under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations.

The intention of the Council in adopting that resolution was to try to encourage the full and effective response of the Libyan Government to the requests in resolution 731 (1992) so that international terrorism could be suppressed and justice made to prevail. However, the Libyan Government continued to fail to fulfil its obligations, and the Security Council had to take further measures by adopting resolution 883 (1993) of 11 November 1993.

It should the noted that the Council, by paragraph 13 of resolution 748 (1992), had taken steps to review the situation every 120 days or sooner and has since faithfully undertaken 18 sanction reviews. In this context, I wish to note that some developments have taken place since the adoption of resolution 731 (1992) to the extent that the Libyan authorities have responded to the requests for cooperation in the judicial inquiry regarding UTA flight 772. The Government of Japan hopes that the Libyan Government will also respond fully and effectively to its other obligations under resolutions 731 (1992) and 748 (1992).

The humanitarian need of the Libyan people is an important factor to which it is appropriate for the Security Council to give consideration in applying these sanctions. In accordance with paragraph 9 of resolution 748 (1992), the Committee of the Security Council on sanctions on Libya has regularly authorized flights for the travel of Libyan pilgrims. The Committee has also authorized flights for medical evacuation on the basis of the agreed guidelines. The Committee has recently been considering requests from the Libyan Government regarding the air-worthiness of the Libyan aircraft designated to undertake medical-evacuation flights as well as regarding additional destinations for medical-evacuation flights. Furthermore, the Committee has been considering the report of the fact-finding mission to Libya headed by Mr. Vladimir Petrovsky, Director-General of the United Nations Office at Geneva. As a member of that Committee, Japan will continue to pay special attention to the humanitarian dimensions of the sanctions and to consider favourably requests for humanitarian exceptions under resolution 748 (1992).

A new factor to be examined in the context of this Libyan case is the recent decisions by the International Court of Justice, delivered on 27 February 1998. These are decisions of the Court on the preliminary objection to its jurisdiction raised by the United Kingdom and the United States in the case concerning Questions of Interpretation and Application of the 1971 Montreal Convention arising from the Aerial Incident at Lockerbie. In these decisions the Court, in effect, rejected these preliminary objections and found that it had jurisdiction -- on the basis of article 14, paragraph 1 of the Montreal Convention -- to hear the cases brought by Libya against the United Kingdom and the United States concerning the interpretation or application of the provisions of that Convention. It must be clearly kept in mind, however, that these judgments concern exclusively the jurisdictional phase of the case and do not deal with the merits of the case regarding the destruction of Pan Am flight 103. In the light of the legal nature of these decisions, it is the considered view of the Government of Japan that they cannot prejudice the power of the Security Council on an issue of which the Council has been legitimately seized.

It is the earnest hope of the Government of Japan that the Libyan Government will comply with the relevant resolutions promptly so that the facts regarding the destruction of Pan Am flight 103 can be established as soon as possible. Such cooperation for compliance, together with the definitive and concrete commitment by the Government of Libya to the renunciation of terrorism, will go a long way towards restoring the faith of the international community in Libya and towards lifting the sanctions imposed by the Security Council upon it.

The President

I thank the representative of Japan for the kind words he addressed to me.

Mr. Türk (Slovenia)

I wish to begin by acknowledging the presence of relatives of victims of the tragedy over Lockerbie. Our delegation wishes to take this opportunity to express to them our sincere condolences. Their presence today represents yet another reason for our awareness of the ethical implications of the work of the Security Council.