Basic and Sijak: Unanimous Commission and Internal Agreements

Witness Ivanka Krvavac of the Institute for Medical Expertise said that witness A filed an appeal with a second instance council due to a negative assessment by a first instance commission.

“I was a controller, while Dr. Goran Grabovac and Suada Pasagic were members of the Council. We prepared findings concerning person A on September 23, 2009,” Krvavac said, adding that she signed the findings on behalf of one of her colleagues.

While being cross-examined by the Defence, Krvavac said that she actually prepared the findings in collaboration with Dr. Goran Grabovac and that she then conducted an inspection.When asked by indictee Muhidin Basic if that meant that she inspected her own work, the witness said that, although it was not in accordance with the rulebook, some findings were prepared in that manner on the basis of internal agreements.

Kerim Celik, Defence attorney of indictee Basic, asked the witness if Dr. Grabovac made any suggestions in relation to the assessment of person A’s health condition. The witness answered negatively.

“I am saying that Dr. Suada Pasagic did not agree with your opinion and that you signed the findings and the inspection report. This is why the findings were not prepared in line with the Institute’s Rulebook,” Celik said.Witness Miralem Smajic was examined as an additional State Prosecution witness as well. He said that, in his capacity as military policeman, he was ordered to apprehend Basic’s employee Resid Plecan and confiscate the Volkswagen Golf 1, which was “a prize of war”, in late 1993 or at the beginning of 1994.

The witness said that Plecan refused to come with him and hand the car over to him, so, some time later he called Muhidin Basic, who said that he was his employee and that he had no relations with ‘the Olovo Brigade’.

“Muhidin Basic objected to him being taken away, so I had to ask for backup. After that we took both of them to the Brigade in Olovo,” Smajic said.

The Defence said that this witness’ testimony had no relevance for the indictment.

Witness A was then examined at a closed session at a request by the Trial Chamber. She became ill during her testimony, so the hearing was interrupted briefly.

According to the official schedule of hearings, this trial is due to continue on November 26.
M.B.