Inside the Twana H.S. and Asia R.A. Trial #03: Becoming Perpetrators

TRIAL OF TWANA H.S. AND ASIA R.A.

Higher Regional Court – Munich, Germany

Trial Monitoring Summary #03

Hearing Date: June 2 & 6, 2025

CAUTION: Some testimony may include graphic descriptions of torture, rape or other violent acts.  

Note that this summary is not a verbatim transcript of the trial; it is merely an unofficial summary of the proceedings.  

Throughout this summary, [information located in brackets are notes from our trial monitor] and “information placed in quotes are statements made by the witness, judges or counsel.” The names and identifying information of witnesses have been redacted. 

[Note: SJAC provides a summary of the proceedings while redacting certain details to protect witness privacy and to preserve the integrity of the trial.]

SJAC’s 3^rd trial monitoring report details days 3 and 4 of the trial of Twana H.S. and Asia R.A. in Munich, Germany. On this trial day, the Court first read out the remaining part of the verdict on Twana H.S.’s participation in a terrorist organization from the prior trial, followed by the prior court’s denial of a parole request by Twana H.S. The court commissioned a psychological evaluation of Twana H.S. to assess whether the parole request had merit. The experts found Twana H.S. had a personality structure marked by dissocial and narcissistic traits, though he has not been diagnosed with a personality disorder. The court denied the request in 2023, as it established a high risk of Twana H.S. reintegrating into the radical Islamist underground and committing further crimes.

On the second day this week, Asia R.A.’s Defense Counsel Shervin Ameri initially planned to read a statement of Asia R.A. However, Asia R.A. decided not to make a statement at that point and is not planning to make a statement going forward. Instead, the Court questioned the uncle of Asia R.A, [redacted name] W2. He had fled Iraq in 2002 and came to Germany later. Asia R.A.’s mother died when she was just 6 months old, according to the uncle’s testimony. Her father [redacted name], F14, who was part of Daesh (ISIS) very early on, took Asia R.A. to a village far away from her mother’s family. The uncle further recalled that, when Asia R.A. was deemed old enough, her father brought home an older man and told Asia R.A. she could choose to marry this man or Twana H.S., otherwise he will shoot her with his Kalashnikov. 

Day 3 – June 2, 2025

On this trial day, the Defense Counsel of Asia R.A. had planned to read the testimony of Asia R.A. regarding her experience of the events in question. However, it was postponed to Friday, June 6, 2025, as the Defense Team wanted to confer with Asia R.A. before reading her testimony. Instead, the Court continued reading the verdict of the prior case against Twana H.S. [for part one of the verdict, see Trial Report #2].

The verdict detailed the departure of Twana H.S. and his family from Iraq. As Asia R.A. was not accused of being a participant in ISIS alongside her husband in 2019, the verdict mentioned her only in passing. It remained unclear when Twana H.S. ended his participation in ISIS - the court assumed that he left ISIS following his departure from Syria around August/September 2016. At the same time, Twana H.S. researched weapons and made efforts to learn how to access the darknet.

The court subsequently outlined the circumstances pertaining to the charge of preparing a serious act of violence endangering the state of Germany. It detailed the events leading up to the departure of Twana H.S. from Germany once more. The court noted that, although Twana H.S. stated it was “inhumane that ISIS wants to kill all Yazidis” this did not stop him from voluntarily joining ISIS. Upon joining, he was acutely aware of the organization's propensity for violence. The previously assigned panel of judges was convinced that Twana H.S. deceived his social circle about his inner conviction. He had already made the decision to join ISIS regardless of their violent nature.

The verdict concluded that the Accused committed the crime of participating in a terrorist organization in accordance with Sect. 129a & 129b GCC. He contributed actively to ISIS reaching its goals out of his own free will and participated in the Ribat. The prior bench concluded that he also committed the crime of preparing a serious act of violence that endangers the state in accordance with Sect. 89a GCC, by leaving Germany to join ISIS.

The panel also considered mitigating circumstances. The Accused cooperated in uncovering the circumstances surrounding the crimes of [redacted name], F6. The panel furthermore acknowledged that since Twana H.S. was unemployed at the time, had no family in Germany and recently experienced the separation from his long-term German partner, he “proved susceptible to the influence of the pseudo-religious drumfire propagated by fanatics.” The court assumed that Twana H.S. had reevaluated and changed his position towards the ideology of ISIS. Additionally, the court took the prematurely born son of Twana H.S. into consideration, who as of 2019 had a disability of unknown severity [note: later during the session, it was clarified that the son is hemiplegic]. Finally, Twana H.S. had been in custody since 2018 at the time the verdict was handed down on October 23, 2019.

On the contrary, the court recognized three factors that spoke against the Accused. Firstly, the court took into consideration the long duration of the Accused’s association with ISIS, which spanned nearly two years. Secondly, it acknowledged that ISIS had been designated as the most dangerous terrorist organization at the time of the verdict. Thirdly, the court considered that Twana H.S. had migrated from Germany, where his life had been characterized by a state of relative security. Given his stable apartment, well-ordered financial situation, and opportunity to find another job as a hairdresser, his voluntary decision to leave Germany and join combat with ISIS was weighed to his detriment.

As such, the prior panel sentenced Twana H.S. to three years and three months in prison for participating as a member in a foreign terrorist organization in conjunction with preparing a serious violent offense endangering the state [in accordance with Sect. 129a (1) (1) second alternative; 129b (1) sentence 1; 89a (1); (2) (1); (3) sentence 1 and 2; (4) sentence 1 GCC]. He was sentenced to three years and six months for the continued participation as a member in a foreign terrorist organization [in accordance with Sect. 129a (1) (1) second alternative; 129b (1) sentence 1 GCC]. The court determined [in accordance with Sect. 129a (1) (1) second alternative; 129b (1) sentence 1; 89a (1); (2) (1); (3) sentence 1 and 2; (4) sentence 1; and Sect. 52 and 53 GCC] the total sentence to be four years and three months imprisonment.

After finishing the reading of the verdict, the Court read out another decision by the prior court, denying a request for parole by Twana H.S.

The decision reiterated the facts of the previous conviction before stating that Twana H.S. expressed the wish to work as a self-employed hairdresser and concluded that the request for parole was denied since the circumstances that led to the crimes Twana H.S. committed persisted. Twana H.S. was, according to the decision, a security risk to the public and could therefore not be released. It further argued that Twana H.S.’s decision to return to Germany with his family was largely influenced by the territorial loss of ISIS instead of a change in attitude towards the group. As such, his departure from ISIS could not be considered as a factor supporting his release or as an indication that he no longer posed a threat to the public if released.

According to the decision, different factors against the request of Twana H.S. to be released were carefully weighed. It recognized that Twana’s natural inhibition towards killing had been lowered due to his participation in direct combat. This was considered in favor of assuming that Twana H.S. may commit further violent crimes and therefore against his release.

Further, at least until his imprisonment, Twana H.S. had contact with ISIS-members as well as other individuals with similar intellectual and cultural perspectives. The decision detailed that ISIS regarded current or former members who had served prison sentences in European countries as individuals who had thereby proven their merit. This meant ISIS could reward Twana H.S. for serving his sentence after having been released. Both factors counted against his release on parole.

Considering Twana’s intense adherence to the values of ISIS, the previous court found his alleged “change of heart” following his arrest and during the trial to be of limited credibility. Especially as his only statements were brief assertions that he regretted his actions while the trial was still ongoing. The court therefore concluded that these assertions were insufficient to weigh in favor of his release on parole.

Twana H.S. was given therapeutic options to process his experiences with ISIS, such as psychotherapy. In the eyes of the prior court, he made no substantial use of those offers. When Twana was seen by a psychotherapist in prison, he only asked for a certificate to prove “he was no longer dangerous.” Twana did not accept that he had issues to address regarding his behavior or mental health, despite not having changed anything since joining ISIS. The decision detailed the court’s view that his willingness to work on the factors that contributed to his radicalization was indispensable to ensuring that he would not commit such acts again. Without a willingness to change, the court deemed it too dangerous to release Twana H.S. on probation before serving his sentence in full. 

The decision also noted that while he was a clean and compliant inmate, he had a serious altercation with a fellow inmate. Subsequently, Twana complained about being bullied by fellow inmates. All in all, the prison officials described him as having an untransparent personality structure.

The prior judges also noted his lack of relationships outside the prison. Twana’s eldest son, F3, is German but they did not have a relationship. Therefore, this could not be weighed as a stabilizing factor. While he was still in contact with the Co-Accused Asia R.A., who was caring for their two young children outside of prison, Twana H.S. and Asia R.A. did not have a significant, stabilizing relationship. According to the court’s information, by the time of the parole decision, Asia R.A. had already started a relationship with another man, and “was not interested in the marriage” with Twana H.S. This lack of social stabilization factored against a release.

Even beyond the social aspect the court considered Twana’s prospects in Germany to be very limited. As soon as grounds suspending deportation [from Germany] no longer applied, Twana H.S. will be deported. Even if released, until then, he would not be allowed to leave the [residence] area surrounding [redacted location]. The court considered his lack of perspective as another factor against a release on parole.

Moreover, although the psychological expert did not attest to personality disorders, she diagnosed Twana H.S. with a dissocial personality structure with narcissistic traits. The expert estimated the probability of Twana H.S. reoffending between 30% and 50%. She highlighted a high risk in releasing Twana H.S. once more later in her report. Twana H.S. showed, according to the expert, an increased need for recognition, which he would most likely receive in the Salafist Jihadist milieu. The expert found the lack of accountability by Twana H.S. to be characteristic of his personality and saw it as another glaring risk factor. The expert warned that people with personality structures like Twana H.S. are common targets for organizations like ISIS. In order to release Twana H.S. safely, he would have to find and allow a different way of processing his crimes. According to the expert, Twana H.S. has a very fragile sense of self-confidence, which results in a pronounced need for recognition. The expert believed that he tried to fill this deficit through deception and manipulation both of private romantic partners as well as the authorities. Treatment would include helping Twana H.S. process situations touching on this sore point instead of resorting to aggression and violence. When the expert evaluated Twana H.S., he denied having any such problems and did not seek any treatment. In concluding the assessment, the expert could only give an unfavorable prognosis. Especially when Twana H.S. remained without any real relationships outside of prison, this would heighten the risk of reoffending, including the possibility of other homicides.

The prior court concluded that considering this expert opinion, the heightened risk of Twana H.S. reoffending as well as the considerable weight of his crimes, releasing Twana H.S. could not be justified.

After the Munich Court read the denial of parole, the Judges convened for a short break of two minutes and adjourned the session shortly thereafter. 

The proceedings were adjourned at 11:58 AM

The next trial day will be on June 6, 2025, at 10 AM.

Day 4 – June 6, 2025

Before the second session started this week, the Judges called a doctor and a paramedic to the Judges' chamber. Meanwhile, two more press representatives than usual were in the audience on this trial day, presumably to hear the statement by the Accused, Asia R.A., announced by her Defense during the previous session. Both Accused hid their faces when entering the courtroom.

To reduce noise pollution, the Court interpreters commonly use a microphone which transmits the translation to Asia R.A. via headphones. On this day of the hearing, Asia R.A. was unable to hear the interpreter. The Court reached out to technical assistance, resolving the issue within five minutes.

Unusually, several experts attended the session by order of the Court: Prof. Freisleder, E1, an expert on child and adolescent psychiatry, will give an assessment of Asia R.A’s mental state during the alleged commission of the crimes. Mrs. Setz, who is ordered to the proceedings as the Court’s Juvenile Assistance, must be involved in cases of the potential applicability of juvenile rules [note: The Juvenile Court Assistance has a unique legal status in the proceedings. It does not have the right to actively participate as other parties to the proceedings, such as the right to file an appeal. It nonetheless possesses extensive rights of participation (right to information, right to be present, right to be heard and make statements, right of contact and legal communication). It remains in contact with the juvenile/adolescent throughout the proceedings according to Sect. 38 (3) Youth Courts Act (YCA). The Accused may have still been an adolescent at the beginning of the alleged offences (i.e. between 18 and 20 years old). In such cases, juvenile criminal law may apply, and the psychiatric expert as well as the Juvenile Court Assistance is consulted to provide an assessment of Asia R.A.’s personality, stage of development while committing the crime, and her social situation and prospects.] The Presiding Judge greeted them and noted their presence.

The Presiding Judge then remarked that Twana H.S. had been examined by a court doctor, who informed the Court that Twana should eat and drink soon, for which a break will be issued in a timely manner.  

The Presiding Judge then gave the floor to Asia R.A.’s Defense Counsel Ameri to read her statement. Ameri informed the Court that Asia R.A. would not make a statement at this point, adding that Asia R.A. and her Defense Team were not planning to make a statement at all going forward.

After acknowledging this, the Presiding Judge called the witness [redacted name], W2, Asia R.A.’s maternal uncle. The Judge asked him if he understood German well enough to converse with the Court. W2 answered through the interpreter that while he understands German, he does not speak it. The Court’s interpreter, Mrs. Hossain, C2, translated for the witness. W2 then asked why he had been called as a witness. The Judge told him to hold his question and went on to ask for his identification. Afterwards, the Presiding Judge informed the witness of his rights and duties, highlighting the obligation to tell the truth. W2 told the Court that he is the brother of Asia R.A.’s mother. The Presiding Judge informed the witness that, due to this relationship with Asia R.A., in accordance with Sect. 55 (1), 52 (1) GCCP, he had a right to refuse to testify. W2 chose to testify regardless.

First, W2 testified to his own life. Born in Iraq, as a brother to four sisters, Asia R.A.’s mother being one of them, and two brothers, he served in the Iraqi military. When asked for details of this service, Ameri interjected, requesting that the Judge instruct the witness in accordance with Sect. 55 GCCP [note: Sect. 55 GCCP gives the witness the right to refuse to give information when there is a risk of self-incrimination. The witness must be instructed on this right by the court]. A discussion ensued between Federal Prosecutor Dr. Zabeck, the Presiding Judge and Ameri. The Prosecutor argued there was no need for such instruction since no criminal liability could arise from the answer to the Judge's question at the moment. Judge Stoll ended the discussion, siding with the Prosecution. He too could not identify any risk for criminal culpability, but promised to be vigilant in case any such possibility arose.

W2 continued and recounted that he fled Iraq and traveled to Germany, where he arrived in 2003. He testified that he left Iraq in 2002, traveling to Syria where he stayed for 2 weeks. From Syria he traveled to Moscow, where he stayed for a week before traveling to Austria. He arrived in Austria on March 20, 2003. He traveled to Germany the next day. The Presiding Judge asked the witness if he meant he arrived in 2002, as with the timeline he had given, he could not have left Iraq in 2002 and arrived in Austria on March 20, 2003. The witness denied this and repeated he had left Iraq in 2002 and arrived in Austria in March of 2003. Dr. Stoll, irritated, turned to Judge Strafner, and the two discussed in private for a few moments. Following this, Judge Strafner questioned the witness whether he remembered what the Presiding Judge had told him at the beginning of W2’s testimony. The witness answered that the Judge had asked him when he had come to Germany. Strafner interrupted, asking him if he remembered the instructions the Presiding Judge had given him at the beginning, notably the obligation to tell the truth as the witness knows it. W2, interrupting the Judge in turn, claimed that he was not lying. Judge Strafner then read W2’s police interview transcript, which had been read back to and signed by W2. During the interview, conducted in 2024, W2 had stated he had left Iraq in 2000 instead of 2002. When he was met with disbelief by the witness, Strafner gave W2 the opportunity to see the transcript of the statement as well as his signature on the page with the statement in question. The witness kept repeating that he was not lying, stating he did not know what he had said in the interview. Strafner ended the line of questioning at that point. Presiding Judge Stoll took over again.

The next line of questioning focused on Asia R.A.’s father, [redacted name], F14. According to the witness, F14 was the son of W2’s aunt. F14 married Asia R.A.’s mother, [redacted name], F15, when she was around the age of 19, but the witness could not remember the exact age. When asked by Judge Stoll what he knew of F14, the witness answered with expressed hostility, saying, “He is just sick, this man!” When asked how he came to this conclusion, W2 claimed that F14 “is at fault for Asia R.A.’s fate.” He had heard from relatives that F14 was a part of Daesh [ISIS] as well. W2 added that he was ashamed to even talk about the topic.

The Judge changed the line of questioning, turning to Asia R.A.’s childhood. According to W2, F15 died of leukemia when Asia R.A. was 6 months old on September 24, 1996. W2, F15, and their mother [Asia R.A.’s grandmother] were on the way to the hospital when she died. W2 explained that he had not seen Asia R.A. after this incident. The Judge asked him if he was sure that he had not seen Asia R.A. when she had gotten older. At first, the witness denied this, but after Dr. Stoll asked the question again, W2 admitted to having seen Asia R.A. when she was two or three years old. He corrected himself after a follow-up question that she could have been 5 years old as well. He also admitted to having seen her when she had started attending school, at 7 years old, and later when she was an adult. The witness clarified that he considered girls to be adults at the age 12 or 13. The Presiding Judge then asked again when Asia R.A. was born. W2 repeated that he did not know the exact date, but he knew Asia R.A. had been 6 months old when her mother died in 1996.

At this point, the witness spoke up in German, saying that while he did not speak German well, he could understand it. In his opinion, the interpreter, Mrs. Hossain, was translating his answers and the questions he was being asked very poorly. The Judges did not address this claim. Instead, they instructed the witness to speak to the interpreter in Arabic.

Subsequently, the Judge inquired about the time after Asia R.A. had arrived in Germany. Through the interpreter, the witness replied that he had met Asia R.A. when she had given birth to her son in Germany and visited her in her refugee housing. According to the witness, Asia R.A. said she did not want to stay with Twana H.S. Asia R.A. told W2 that Twana had been a part of ISIS. Since W2 was in Germany at the time of their wedding, he could not judge whether Asia R.A. wanted to marry Twana H.S. or if she was forced into it. Asia R.A. told W2 that her father had brought home an old man and told her that she could choose whom she wanted to marry: this old man or Twana H.S. If she did not decide, F14 would kill Asia R.A. According to the witness, Asia R.A. told him that Twana had been a bad husband. Twana had brought home two little girls, had raped them repeatedly, and told Asia R.A. that if she ever said anything against this, he would kill her. When asked if Asia R.A. herself was punched or raped, W2 said he does not know. However, he added that Twana H.S. treated Asia R.A. like a slave, too. Twana H.S. allegedly told Asia R.A. she should be thankful to be married to him. Other ISIS men were passing their women around; she should be thankful he was not doing something like that. Asia R.A. had, according to W2, tried to flee twice.

When asked about “the two little girls,” W2 said they were Yazidi. Pressed on how he could know this, W2 explained that only the Yazidi were enslaved. According to W2, Asia R.A. had told Twana H.S. to stop abusing the girls, but Twana H.S. had told her he could do whatever he wanted with the girls, and he would kill her if she tried to stop him. W2 said he told Asia R.A. to tell the Court everything herself as he did not know what exactly she had said against Twana H.S.

Judge Strafner then wanted to know more about Asia R.A.’s first husband, as Twana H.S. was her second husband. W2 recalled that her first husband had been killed in a bombing. After this, Asia R.A. married Twana H.S. in Mosul.

Judge Strafner then showed W2 pictures to identify the displayed individuals. The first picture showed five adults, three women, and two men. The women on the right and left end of the row were both carrying two different little children. Three children of kindergarten age were sitting in front of them. W2 identified one of the men as F14, and the other man as the nephew of F14. He further identified the woman carrying the baby on the right as Asia R.A.’s mother, F15.

The next picture showed a woman with open red hair in a wedding dress and a man in a suit posing in front of a red background. W2 identified the couple as F15 and F14. The Judge asked when the two had gotten married. W2 replied that he does not know. Judge Strafner presented an excerpt from the statement W2 had made with the police in which W2 stated that the wedding must have taken place around 1991 or 1992. F15 must have been 17 or 18 at the time. In response to the confrontation with the statement, W2 acknowledged that it could be right, but that he could not remember today.

The next picture displayed a woman with open red hair, wearing makeup, and hugging a woman wearing a white hijab. W2 identified the woman with the open hair as Asia R.A.’s mother. Both him and Asia R.A. started crying at this moment. The Judges gave the witness some time to collect himself before moving on.

The Court moved on to another picture of the same couple posing in front of three people, still wearing the same clothing. W2 identified one of the men standing behind the couple as the nephew of F14, a man called [redacted name], F16. F16’s mother was in the picture as well; she died three or four months before today’s questioning, according to the witness.

The next picture showed a man holding a small child. He was standing in a backyard with a woman his age wearing a hijab. There were two children with them, a boy and a girl [both approximately in their teens]. W2 identified the man as F16 but could not identify the other people. The next picture showed F16 with a woman, identified by W2.

Another photo pictured a man and Asia R.A. videochatting. She was wearing a purple T-shirt with a logo and air pods. W2 identified the two as F16 and Asia R.A.

The next picture depicted a woman holding a little boy. W2 could not identify her. The Court asked him if this was his sister and the witness agreed that she looked similar, but he could not say for sure.

The following picture portrayed Asia R.A. wearing a wedding veil, lying on a bed with a man. The next picture shows the woman and man from the first picture in the same attire. W2 identified them as F15 and F16. Another photo showed a man with a beard as well as Asia R.A. in a checkered hijab.

The last picture showed the Iraqi passport of a woman wearing a hijab. W2 indicated that it was one of his sisters, not F15, and provided her name. Mrs. Hossain, the interpreter, whispered, more to herself than the room at large, that this name was not what was written there [on the passport]. Defense Counsel for Twana H.S., Peter Ewald, asked Mrs. Hossain to repeat herself and please translate what was written on the passport. After a short discussion, Mrs. Hossain clarified that she had misspoken, the name W2 had said was indeed the one written on the passport.

As Asia R.A. had been crying continuously since she saw the picture of her mother, Ameri asked for a break so his client could collect herself. The Presiding Judge agreed, and the Court issued a lunch break.

***

[47-minutes-break]  

***

After the break, Judge Strafner asked W2 for the name of F14’s tribe. W2 replied he does not know its name. The Court then read out a name that F14 had been called according to the investigative team, wondering whether this could be F14’s tribal name. W2 could not confirm this. Following up, the Judges noted that Asia R.A. had received a picture via a chat by an “uncle” with this proposed name. W2 reiterated that he was unaware of these details.

Subsequently, Judge Strafner asked the witness about the woman F14 married after F15 had died. W2 recalled that F14 had married a woman as old as F14’s or F15’s mother. The brothers of this woman had all been part of Daesh [ISIS], W2 added.

As the Prosecution, the Plaintiffs’ Counsels, the representative for the Court’s Juvenile Assistance, and the expert Prof. Freisleder, E1, did not have any questions, the Defense Team of Twana H.S. posed its questions.

Defense Counsel Ewald confirmed with the witness that while he did not have contact with Asia R.A. for a long time, W2 had seen Asia R.A. when she was twelve or thirteen years old. Ewald then asked how the contact between Asia R.A. and W2 had been established after Asia R.A. and Twana H.S. had arrived in Germany. At this point, Judge Stoll interjected that W2 had answered this question already.

Ewald then wanted to know how and when W2 had learned that Asia R.A. had married again. W2 recalled that one of his sisters had told him, and added that Asia R.A. had informed him about her problems with her husband while she had been in the hospital with her new baby. W2 told Asia R.A. that he did not want to get involved and that she should go to the Judge to tell them everything about her husband.

Ewald then pressed the witness how he knew that this second husband of Asia R.A. had been a part of ISIS. The witness repeated that his sister had told him, triggering Twana H.S. to speak up. He was told by his Counsel to be silent, but Twana tried to speak up again. Ewald and Twana’s other Counsel, Martin Kämpf, consulted with their client. After the discussion, Ewald continued the questioning, wanting to know exactly what W2’s sister had told W2. The witness recounted that he does not know exactly. Defense Counsel Kämpf interrupted, telling the witness that he had an obligation to tell the truth throughout the questioning. Kämpf added that if W2 was not going to answer Counsel Ewald’s question truthfully, he would have to come up with something to address this. He added that there might be a suspicion of false testimony [Sect. 153 GCC]. W2 then testified that everyone knew the new husband of Asia R.A. was part of ISIS, stressing that he was telling the truth. Ameri, Defense Counsel of Asia R.A., intervened, urging the witness to answer. Judge Reichenberger reminded Ameri that he had not been given the floor yet. Ameri retorted with a question, asking if Judge Reichenberger had suddenly become the Presiding Judge. The other Judges commented, prompting Presiding Judge Stoll to call the room to order. After the room had quieted down, he gave the word back to Ewald.

Before the Court could continue, Asia R.A. interrupted, telling the Court that she had a headache and would like to take a painkiller.  The Court called a doctor but continued the questioning until he arrived.

Meanwhile, the Defense repeated their question, asking which sister exactly had told W2 that Twana H.S. was part of ISIS. W2 provided the name of his sister. Ewald then read an excerpt of the police interview in which W2 had said he assumed Twana H.S. had been part of ISIS. The Counsel then asked whether W2 “knew” or “assumed” that Twana H.S. had been part of ISIS. W2 remembered that his relatives had told him Twana H.S. was in Mosul and part of ISIS. When the Defense tried to ask this question anew, the Presiding Judge interjected since the witness had already answered this question. Ewald then wanted to know details about Asia R.A.’s alleged attempts to flee from Twana H.S. W2 testified that Asia R.A. herself and his relatives had claimed that Asia R.A. had tried to flee. Before any further questions could be asked, a doctor entered the room to examine Asia R.A.

The Court interrupted the hearing for the duration of the examination. After a short break, the Court reconvened and adjourned the proceedings as Asia R.A. had been found not fit to stand trial for the rest of the day.

The proceedings were adjourned at 2:40 PM

The next trial day will be on June 24, 2025, at 1:00 PM.

___________________________

For more information or to provide feedback, please contact SJAC at [email protected] and follow us on Facebook and Twitter. Subscribe to SJAC’s newsletter for updates on our work