Questions of Interpretation and Application of the 1971 Montreal Convention arising from the Aerial Incident at Lockerbie (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v. United Kingdom) - Lockerbie: conclusion of the hear

INTERNATIONAL COURTOFJUSTICE
Peace Palace, 2517 KJ The Hague. Tel.(31-70-302 23 23). Cables: Intercourt, The Hague.

Telefax (31-70-364 99 28). Telex 32323. Internet address : http: Il www.icj-cij.org

Communiqué
unofficial
forimmediatrelease

No. 97113
22 October 1997

Questions of Interpretatioand Application of the 1971 Montreal Convention

arisingrom the Aerial Incident at Lockerbie
(Libyan Arab Jamahina versus United Kingdom}
(Libyan Arab Jamahiua versus United States of America)

Lockerbie: conclusion of the hearings on the issue of the jurisdiction of the ICJ
the Court ready to consider its judgment

THE HAGUE, 22 October 1997. The public hearings regarding the present phase of the
Lockerbie cases at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which started on 13 October, were
concluded today, enabling the Judges to startheir deliberations. The Judges have to decide
whether the Court bas jurisdiction to deal with the merits of the cases and whether the Libyan
complaints against the United Kingdom and the United States are admissible.

Libya accuses bath States of attempting to compel it to surrender two Libyan nationals
charged with having caused the destruction of PanAm flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, on 21

December 1988, in which 270 people died (ali 259 passengers and crew, as weil as 11 inhabitants).

The United Kingdom and theUnited States maintain that the ICJ bas no jurisdiction in the
matter and that the Libyan complaints are inadmissible .

• During the hearings of 13-22 October, the delegation of the Libyan Arab Jamahirya was
led by His Excellency Hamed Ahmed Elhouderî, Ambassador; the delegation of the United
Kingdom by Sir Franklin Berman, Legal Adviser of the Foreign Office; and the delegation of the
United States by Mr David R. Andrews, Legal Adviser of the Department of State.

The Vice-President of the Court, Judge Christopher G. Weeramantry (Sri Lanka), exercised
the functions of President. The President of the Court, Judge Stephen M. Schwebel (United States),
could not do so, being a national of one of the parties.

The judgment conceming the preliminary objectionsthe United Kingdom and the United
States, which is final and without appeal, will be delivered in approximately four months. lt will be
read during a public hearinga date which will be announced in a forthcoming press release.

* ~2 -

The history of the dispute

Investigations in the United Kingdom and the United States after the explosion of the
PanAm aircraft led, in November 1991, to allegations that two Libyan nationals (reportedly
members of the Libyan intelligence service) had caused a bomb to be placed aboard. Bath States
theo demanded that Libya surrender the accused for trial in either Scotland or the United States.

The UN Security Council adopted afterwards three resolutions (731, 748 and 883, two of
which imposed sanctions) urging Libya "to provide a full and effective response to those requests
so as to contribute to the elimination of international terrorism".

In its requests to the Court on 3 March 1992, Libya argued that there was no extradition
treaty between itself and the United Kingdom, nor itself and the Uniteds, and that according
to the 1971 Montreal Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil
Aviation (to which ail threetates are parties), it was entitled to take measures to exercise its
criminaljurisdiction and to prosecute the accused. e

Provisional measures (interim injonction) requested by Libya at that same date to prevent
further action by the United Kingdom and the United States, including action in the UN Security
Council, to campel it to surrender the accused were not ordered by the Court on 14 April 1992.

*

Internai Judicial Practice of the Court with respect to deliberations

As outlined in the Internai Judicial Practice of the Court with respect to deliberations, the
Judges willsoon hold a preliminary discussion. Sorne time later, a full deliberation will be held.
On the basis of the views expressed, a drafting committee will be chosen consisting of two
Judges holding the majority view, and the Presidente shares that view.
The draft text will go through two readings. Meanwhîle Judges who wish to do so, may
prepare a separater dissenting opinion.
The final vote will be taken after the adoption of the final text in the second reading.

*
•
Note to the press

The full transcripts of the hearings of 13-22 October cao be found·on the Internet site of
the Court at the following addreshttp://www.icj-cij.org.

Mr. Arthur Witteveen, Secretary of the Court (tel.: 31-70-302 2336), or Mrs. Laurence
Blairon, Information Officer (tel.: 31-70-302 2337), are available to deal with any requests for
information.