Basic and Sijak: Silence Caused by Shame
This post is also available in: Bosnian
Acting on an order issued by the Prosecution of Bosnia and Herzegovina, a medical team, consisting of two psychiatrists and one psychologist, undertook an expert examination of witness A and determined that she experienced a severe trauma and that she did not want to speak about, because she was ashamed. Psychiatrist Marija Kaucic-Komsic and psychologist Mirjana Music presented their findings before the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
“Our conclusion is that witness A was raped during the war by soldiers, whom she had known from before the war, and two unknown soldiers, who used violence and brutality. She avoided speaking about it because she was ashamed,” Kaucic-Komsic said.
As she said, witness A experienced an extremely severe trauma and suffered from long-term consequences, which has led to permanent changes in her personality.
“The consequences of her situation are depression, shame, guilt, anger, constant need to wash herself, crying, insomnia and difficulties in establishing relations with others,” Kaucic-Komsic explained.
The Prosecution of Bosnia and Herzegovina charges Muhidin Basic and Mirsad Sijak with having forced a Croat woman to have sexual intercourse with them in the Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina, ABiH prison, which was located in the basement of Sumarstvo building in Vares on January 25, 1994.
Kerim Celik, Defence attorney of indictee Basic, wanted to know how the expert witnesses knew that the witness was tied while being raped. Kaucic-Komsic said that, while preparing their findings, they used psychological tests and interviews with the injured party, as well as the documents provided by the Prosecution of Bosnia and Herzegovina, including statements by witnesses and medical documentation for the witness.
When asked by Celik if the expert witnesses knew that the witness came to Sumarstvo premises again, “after the alleged rape had taken place”, the doctors said that, even if that fact was known to them, it would not have “influenced their findings”.
Celik said that the expert witnesses’ findings were biased.
Fahrija Karkin, Defence attorney of indictee Sijak, said that he wanted to examine the third expert witness, who failed to appear in the courtroom, saying that he “would give better answers”.
This expert witness will be invited to testify at one of the future hearings. The trial is due to continue on June 4 with examination of protected witness C.
