Jezik / Language:
2 October 2012

Basic and Sijak: Assessment of Health

A witness testifying in defence of Muhidin Basic at the trial for crimes in Vares in 1994 recalls that she did not complete her work on a case related to the assessment of work ability in 2009.

Suada Pasagic said that she worked with the Institute for Assessment of Health in 2009, adding that she was member of a second instance council for work ability assessment. The witness pointed out that she remembered having worked on case and that she “disagreed with the findings” in that case.  

Indictee Basic presented the witness with a document, indicating that she was a member of a second instance council, whose task was to assess protected witness A’s work ability.

“As far as I can remember, this was the first case in which I disagreed with the findings, In my opinion, omissions were made in this case. This document does not indicate that the person underwent the required medical examination,” Pasagic said, reviewing the document presented to her by the Defence.

The Prosecution of Bosnia and Herzegovina charges Basic and Mirsad Sijak with having forced a Croat female person to have sexual intercourse with them in a prison located in the basement of Sumarstvo building in Vares on January 25, 1994.

The indictment alleges that Basic was Chief of the State Security Service Section in Olovo and Sijak was a member of the military police with the 122nd Light Brigade of the Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina, ABiH at that time.

Witness Pasagic said that she could not remember, on the basis of the name, whether she was involved in the case presented to her or not, but, by looking at the diagnosis, she could say that she thought that this was the case she referred to.  

“This case was put aside in order to be checked later on. Therefore, I propose that you check when the case left the Institute,” Pasagic said.

Prosecutor Mirko Lekic told the witness that the person, whose name is mentioned in the findings, “was granted the right to pension on the basis of a decision issued by the second instance council of the Institute on September 23, 2009”.

The witness said that she considered that the decision presented to her by the Defence was not valid, because it did not contain her facsimile signature.

The next hearing is due to be held on October 22.

comments powered by Disqus