Vilis HāznersJudicial review and denial of motion to appeal

A10 305 336

that in June of 1941 she worked as a clerk In the Department of Labor Reserves in Riga. The respondent came to work for this establishment in May of 1941. Sometime between June 22 and July 1, 1941 the respondent waa arrested by N.K.V.D.

Another witness introduced by the respondent was Voldemars Capans, who testified that in the summer of 1941 he was arrested by the N.K.V.D., and taken to the central prison in Riga (Tr. p. 11861). He testified that every one of the prisoners in the central prison had their hair completely cut (Tr. p. 1187-11882). He also escaped from the central prison on June 30, 1941. He did not meet the respondent at the central prison but knew him subsequently here in the United States. This witness as well as the other witnesses who knew of the respondent's arrest support the respondent's testimony that he had had his hair closely cropped as a result of his arrest and imprisonment in the Riga central prison.

The next witness was Eriks Parups who was born on December 7, 1908 and came to the United States on December 15. 1951, where he presently resides at Bradenton, Florida. He also was a graduate from the Latvian Military Academy, who studied economics at the University of Riga and obtained an engineering degree in this country. He testified that he was a member of the anti-German underground during the German occupation of Latvia during the Second World War and also served as a company commander in the Latvian Legion. He stated that he got to know the respondent when they both served as officers in the regiment in Riga in 1936 or 1937. He returned to his home in Riga from guerrilla fighting with the Russians on July 5, 1941 (Tr. p. 11933). He went to the building where all officers were asked to assemble and register and was elected secretary of the officer's association (Tr. p. 11954). That was his job until September 1941 when he went to work at the Annas Street headquarters of the Latvian Self-Defense Forces (Tr. p. 11965). There he saw the respondent almost every day because the respondent was chief of administration, which meant that he gave out the orders prescribed by his superiors, received the reports and kept these in order. Mostly he sat in his cabinet and did not have outside activities. He did not have any troops under his command (Tr. p. 11966). He testified that the respondent had nothing whatsoever to do with the persecution of Jews and he was never a member of the so-called Arajs Commando who were executioners (Tr. p. 12037). He added that he had been a friend of the respondent all his life and that the respondent was an honest, capable and decent man who did not lie, a real Latvian patriot (Tr. p. 1205-12068).

15