The guilty verdict on Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, a married man with children, was delivered after an historic 84-day trial under   Scottish law in the Netherlands. 
 
                Mr Megrahi was one of two Libyan former Libyan Airline employees in Malta and believed to be members of the Libyan intelligence service who were tried for the bombing  of PanAm Flight 103 over Lockerbie on 21 December 1988. 

              The judges recommended a minimum of 20  years "in view of the horrendous nature of this  crime". An appeal against the conviction is  being planned. 

              Mr Megrahi's co-accused, Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah,  was found not guilty and has been told he is  free to return home. However those who held Libya responsible for the bombing believe that Mr Fhimah was also guilty but there wasn't enough material evidence implicating him as it was the way with his condemned colleague. 

              US President George W Bush said he hoped  relatives of the dead would take some solace  from the outcome promising that the American Government will continue to press Libya to accept responsibility for this act and  to compensate the families. 
 
              The two Libyans, were eventually brought to trial in May 2000 under a deal with Colonel Gaddafi. after sustaining nine years of UN sanctions for refusing to hand them over to be tried in Scotland 

              The agreement led to opening the trial on neutral  soil in a high-security  courtroom built at the former US  military base at  Camp Zeist,  near the Dutch capital of   Amsterdam. The cost  of the trial has been  estimated at £60m, while the cost of the investigation - the longest and most comprehensive and expensive in Scottish history runs to several millions. 

              Throughout, the two  protested their innocence while the defence  lawyers argued there was Palestinian            involvement in the atrocity. They said Palestinian extremists from the Popular Front For the Liberation of Palestine- General Command, lead by Ahmed Gebril, carried out the bombing,   probably on behalf of Iran in revenge for the shooting down of an Iranian civilian Airbus  earlier in 1988 by the American warship USS  Vincennes. 

              However the Judges'  82-page findings, said there was no evidence of any other involvement other than that of "Libyan origin". 

              There are many questiones waiting for answers by politicians, like Gorge Galloway and Tam Dalyell, both Scottish members of the house of commons in Westminster, by many experts and not to forget the  Relatives of those who died. All  insist that the trial  was only the beginning in their quest to  uncover the truth behind the bombing. In the light the verdict,  Scottish MPs in London joined the relatives of the victims in renewing their  demand for a full public inquiry. 

             While  US relatives are   planning a civil action  against the Libyan Government, both Mr Dalyell and Mr Galloway asked questions about the involvement of other parties, specifically the CIA role in helping a former Lebanese agent who was running a drugs smuggling operation and was thought to be duped in carrying the bomb disguised in a radio cassette. Thus dismissing the theory of the suitcase which the Mr Megrahi was found guilty of smuggling aboard the flight. 
 

            Others want to hold Colonel  Gaddafi responsible.  Bert Ammerman, whose brother died in the  bombing, told CNN: "I hope that Mr Bush will ...announce that Libya will remain as a rogue nation. "Sanctions should never go away. This is           state-sponsored terrorism."  Professor Paul Wilkinson, director of the Centre    for the Study of Terrorism and Political 
              Violence at the University of St Andrews in  Scotland, said the judges clearly believed  Colonel Gaddafi had ordered the bombing. His comment was in response to Libya's announcement that Mr Megrahi alone was responsible for the act. 

              "This is a dictatorship,  Gaddafi is clearly  responsible for all the key decisions that are taken and quite clearly  in this field of terrorism he has a long track  record of involvement,"  he said. 
 

              While the Libyan government - which seemed to be suspiciously neutral commenting on the verdict on the national television news without the usual anti-western rhetoric- called for an immediate lifting of the sanctions that were suspended when Colonel Gaddafi agreed on the trial in 1999, Britain and the US have other ideas. A spokesman from the  White House said:   "The government of Libya must take  responsibility," adding that the verdict does  not in itself signify an end to sanctions against  Libya".  After consulting with Britain, the US  Government would  approach Libya in the near future to discuss  the remaining steps to  be taken under the UN  resolutions before the  sanctions are removed. 
              In London No 10 Downing street  Prime Minister,  Tony Blair, said he was glad that justice had  been done adding that he  expected Libya to pay full compensation. 

              After the judges returned their verdicts, Mr Megrahi's lawyer William Taylor QC told the  court that his client "maintains his innocence  so there is nothing I can say by way of  mitigation". 
              Under Scots law, the  only basis for an appeal  is that there has been a miscarriage of  justice  Ultimately this would 
 be heard by five judges sitting at Camp Zeist,  where Mr Megrahi will   remain in custody pending the hearing   taking place. 

              The Lockerbie case made as it was  the first time a Scottish court has sat on   foreign territory. Unusually, there was no jury to hear evidence from 230 witnesses,  resulting in a total of 10,232 pages of court  transcripts covering more than three million  words. Crucial witnesses, however, were called by the defence but where never able to appear as the Syrian government didn't allow them to do so, or to bring to court vital evidence. Former members of  PFLP-General Command, had supplied the defence with evidence implicating Syria and Iran and would have got the two Libyan off the hook, according to the defence team.

             In the two years that followed the incident, investigation by the Scottish police as well as Births, German and other European intelligence services as well as the CIA, concentrated on Iran Syria and Palestinian terror groups. Many experts believed that It was a Palestinian group like PFLP-GC, who had sleeping cells in Germany and other European nations carried out the operation with Syrian help on behalf of Iran to avenge shooting down the Iranian air bus in earlier in 1988.

            However the two interested parties United States and Britain , who happened to be  key players in the region changed alliance. As a result of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait and the US lead coalition needing a regional powers to join the efforts to fight the Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, there was a move to appease Syria and Iran. Syria which was on the State Department list of nations supporting terrorism, was badly needed in the alliance against Saddam, also was her role in curtailing Hizbollah and other terror organizations in Lebanon as well as to help release many western hostages held by Islamic radicals in Lebanon. Iran had a great influence in Lebanon and her neutrality in the coming war against Iraq was badly needed.

           Britain  had severed diplomatic relations with Syria following Syria's intelligence agents involvement in a plot to blow up Al-Al - Israeli airlines- flight over London in 1986 by Nizar Hindawi, a Jordanian working for the intelligence. On the eve of the Gulf war, Britain restored diplomatic relations with Syria and the French allowed Syria a free hand role in Lebanon defeating General Michele Aoun who wanted Syria's troops out. Gen Aoun was pulled out of Lebanon by the French as part of the deal to let Syria send troops to Kuwait and Iran to agree on staying on the sidelines.
 
          However with persistence of the families of the victims on both sides of the Atlantic, and investigative journalists asking questions, the theory goes, a scape goat had to be found, Colonel Gaddafi was the best candidate.

          Despite the verdict and the noise coming from both the Americans and the British, Journalists and MPs are asking questions and calling for a public inquiry, Names mentioned like the firm who supplied Libya with the triggering mechanisms for the explosive device - one of them found in Lockerbie was a crucial as forensic evidence - but experts from the company were never held accountable despite the fact that they spent some time in Libya training the Libyans how to assemble bombs. So conspiracy theoreticians believe the CIA struck a deal with the company to testify against the two Libyans in exchange for some immunity. Also the theory about a CIA agent smuggling drugs in a CIA financed and sanctioned operation to help release American hostages in Lebanon, being unknowingly involved as he was duped into carrying the Toshiba radio cassette concealing the plastic explosives.

         Thus every one is calling for a public inquiry to answer political questions that could not be answered during the trial.
        '' As such, the trial was limited to looking at evidence which was specifically relevant to the charges. The trial was concerned with  determining the guilt or innocence of two individuals on specific charges. It did not  address the wider issues, according to  litigation expert Philip Rodney, of the  Scottish law firm Burness
           ''  There has been considerable speculation as to the whole circumstances leading up to and surrounding the bomb on Flight 103.'' Mr Rodney told the BBC.
Who was ultimately behind it? 
Were US and UK    intelligence warned about the bomb? 
Did the  government have any prior warning? 
How come certain family members of FBI agents who were booked on the flight did not travel? 
Were there  lapses in security?
Where did they arise? 

              In the words of MP Dalyell The trial has left crucial questions unanswered   and has posed others. The terms of reference  of any public inquiry would require to be defined, but it should focus on the concerns which have been identified by the families and others. 
 
              According to Mr Rodney's replies to the BBC, A public inquiry does not have the authority to reach a judgement on criminal responsibility. At   an inquiry, all the evidence is made available in  public, with the possible effect of preventing a fair and unprejudiced trial. Accordingly, it was  appropriate for the trial to be completed first. 

               However, the inquiry would have the   power to exclude the public, or a section of the public, where it was of the opinion that it was in the public interest expedient to do so because of the subject matter and the nature  of the evidence to be given. 
              Unlike a trial where judges do not play an active role,  a public inquiry is  an inquisitorial  approach is taken. It takes a positive role in determining the truth and will seek the assistance of witnesses as it considers  necessary. Any witness could be called to attend. It would be interesting to see, given the national  security issues, who would attempt to obtain  immunity.