Inside the Twana H.S. and Asia R.A. Trial #05: Pieces of a Puzzle Leading to Munich

TRIAL OF TWANA H.S. AND ASIA R.A.  

Higher Regional Court – Munich, Germany     

Trial Monitoring Summary #05    

Hearing Date: June 30, July 1, 2 & 3, 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 5^th trial monitoring report details days 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the trial of Twana H.S. and Asia R.A. in Munich, Germany. On this first trial day, the Court questioned three police officers. First, they questioned W4, an officer at the German Federal Criminal Police Office (BKA). She explained the procedural work behind the investigation into Twana H.S. and Asia R.A. Next, they questioned officer W1, once more - another leading investigator in the present case. The Court summoned another investigator, W5, to testify about an interview which he had conducted in W1’s stead due to W1’s unavailability that day.

On the second day of the week, witness F7, was questioned. She described the four visits between herself, her ex-husband F6, and the two Accused. She recounted specifically how she first learned from Asia R.A. that P1, was not, how she first believed, Asia R.A.’s daughter, but instead a “Sabiya” (slave). F7 provided information about her views on slavery, how Asia R.A. justified P1’s treatment, and testified on her personal encounters with Asia R.A. and P1.

On the third day of the week, the Court questioned W6, the presiding judge in the prior court case against Twana H.S. [for the verdict, see Trial Reports #02 and #03]. The verdict detailed that Twana H.S. had left Germany in May 2015. The judge clarified that Twana H.S. had left Germany in March 2015.

On the fourth day of the week, the witness W7 was questioned. He worked for the Investigative Team to Promote Accountability for Crimes Committed by Da'esh/ISIL (UNITAD) as a data analyst and investigator. He started investigating the two victims and the two Accused after UNITAD received a request for mutual legal assistance (MLA) from the German Prosecutor General. He recounted the steps of his investigation, how he found Rescue Office statements by multiple Yazidi girls who knew the victims through geographical analysis within the UNITAD database. 

Day 6 - June 30, 2025

On this trial day, before the Court called today’s witness to enter, Asia R.A. released any doctors treating her from their legal duty of confidentiality at the Presiding Judge's request.

The Court continued by calling in the first witness, [redacted name], W4. W4 is a lead investigator with the Federal Criminal Police Office (BKA). The Court asked her to elaborate on the procedural work done by the police. She was instructed not to testify to anything regarding the content of the investigation, especially any findings or interviews with [redacted name], F7.

The officer testified that the police had reached out to several international organizations for help regarding the investigation into Twana H.S.’s and Asia R.A.’s alleged crimes. The Investigative Team to Promote Accountability for Crimes Committed by Da'esh/ISIL (UNITAD), responded. They launched their own investigation, which led to the discovery of the victims [redacted name], P1, and [redacted name], P2, as well as several witnesses. UNITAD conducted several interviews with witnesses, collaborating with the police, often via stream. The interviews were videotaped and transcribed. The police translated the transcripts into German. UNITAD also sent two pictures of P1 to the police. One showing P1 when she was four years old, shortly before she was abducted by ISIS, another showing P1 while in captivity.

Following the search of the Accused’s home, the surveillance of their telecommunication, and the eventual arrest of Twana H.S., led by W4, the police then questioned the witnesses, victims, Asia R.A.’s uncle, W2, and another man associated with Asia R.A., [redacted name], F26.

Only Defense Counsel Ameri had a question for the witness regarding her English skills, which the officer described as very good. The Court adjourned for lunch after dismissing the witness.

***  

[95-minute-break]  

***

After the break, the Court heard officer [redacted name], W1, again [for W1’s first testimony, see Trial Report #02]. The Court informed the parties to the proceedings that it would proceed chronologically through the relevant interviews the officer had conducted in the investigation regarding Twana H.S. and Asia R.A.

W1 first described an interview with Asia R.A. in 2018, which was conducted because of Twana H.S.’s link with ISIS. The police operated under the assumption that Asia R.A. did not have a right to refuse testimony pursuant to Sect. 52 (1) GCCP [applying to a selected group of close relatives of the Accused listed in Sect. 52 GCCP have]. According to the officer, Asia R.A. testified that she had married Twana H.S. in Mosul in 2015. When asked whether they had lived in Bsaira البصيرة, Asia R.A. denied, stating that they had lived in Mosul. The marriage had been arranged by her aunt, though Asia R.A. had been the one to decide to marry Twana H.S. herself, even calling him “my treasure” [German: Schatz] during the interview. Asia R.A. only mentioned her father in relation to the wedding because he had fallen ill, according to W1. When asked about his own assessment of whether Asia R.A. seemed to have been abused by Twana H.S., the officer denied any indication of this.

The interview further detailed that Asia R.A. confirmed her husband’s statement regarding the timeline and events stated by Twana H.S. in the court case in 2019 [for more information, see Trial Report #02], adding that Twana had followed F6 to join ISIS. According to her, Twana H.S. had been an ambulance driver in Mosul, and they fled to Kirkuk to escape ISIS. 

As the Federal Prosecutors and the Plaintiffs' Counsels did not have any questions regarding this specific interview, [redacted name] E1, the expert on adolescent psychology, was allowed to ask questions. He asked what the officer's overall impression of Asia R.A. had been while interviewing her. W1 recalled that Asia seemed like she was following her husband's directions. He also noted that Asia R.A. was not like German twenty-year-olds, who would speak freely and elaborate. Instead, she appeared more dependent on her husband’s decisions.

Ewald, Defense Counsel for Twana H.S., followed up on this.  The officer added that he got the impression Asia R.A. wanted to avoid saying anything that could incriminate her husband. Any further questions by the Defense Team of Twana H.S. served to reassure Asia R.A.’s confirmation of Twana H.S.’s statements.

[Redacted name], C2, the Arabic interpreter, interrupted, drawing attention to the fact that Asia R.A. was not feeling well. Upon inquiry, Asia R.A. informed the Court that today, she had not yet drunk or eaten anything, as she had not had any appetite. The Court, which had recognized that it was a very hot day and reminded everyone to stay hydrated, adjourned for a 15-minute break so Asia could be medically treated.

***  

[15-minute-break]  

***

The Court resumed the session by informing Asia R.A. that the proceedings could be held in her absence, if Asia R.A. became unfit to stand trial as a result of her refusing to eat or drink.

W1 then continued his testimony of an interview with [redacted name], F10, an alleged fellow ISIS affiliate. After detailing how Twana H.S. and F10 had met, the officer explained that Twana H.S. had reached out to F10 via Telegram while with ISIS after F10 had asked others at their mosque in Munich how to contact Twana H.S. In their chat, Twana H.S. sent F10 a picture displaying the ISIS flag in the background of a girl standing next to a couch. The girl was, according to F10, about 8 years old, and Twana H.S. had given F10 the impression that this was the daughter of Twana H.S.’s new wife. When the Presiding Judge asked if a man other than Twana H.S. was the father, the officer guessed this to be true as Twana H.S. had lived in Germany 9 years prior. After confirming the details laid out in the verdict in 2019, W1 explained which other individuals F10 had been in contact with while they were with ISIS.

As the other parties and experts did not have any questions regarding this interview, Defense Counsel Ewald asked whether it was possible for anyone to be with ISIS purely in a civil capacity.  The officer replied that he does not know. When asked about the picture, W1 said he had not seen the picture himself; F10 had only described it to him.

The Presiding Judge then asked W1 to wait outside while the Court questioned BKA officer [redacted name], W5, who had conducted an interview with Twana H.S. The interview had mostly revolved around F6 and F7 as Twana H.S. had agreed to help the authorities by giving them information about F6 and F7 regarding their joining ISIS. W5 stressed that they were careful not to ask questions regarding Twana H.S.’s own actions while with ISIS. Twana H.S.’s lawyer in this case, Peter Ewald, was present during the interview. According to Twana H.S., F7 had always been veiled while with ISIS. Twana H.S. also confirmed, according to the officer, that he, F6, and F7 had left Germany together. F6 and F7 brought several children, one of whom, [redacted name] [also: [redacted name]] F17, had not been F7’s biological child. The interview also touched on the timeline in which Twana H.S., F6, and F7 had seen each other while with ISIS.

After this, the Court adjourned for a short break.

***  

[15-minute-break]  

***

H.S.’s Defense Counsel Ewald then asked W5 whether Twana H.S. had mentioned going to Syria to work in a hospital. The officer repeated that Twana H.S. and his actions or motivations had not been part of this interview. As there were no further questions, W1 was called back into the courtroom.

First, W1 was questioned about an interview with Twana H.S. from September 1, 2020. In this interview, Twana H.S. revealed that F6 had worked for ISIS as a technician. Among other things, F6 apparently built bomb switches for suicide bombings for ISIS. Twana H.S. also described where the apartment of F6 and F7 had been in Raqqa. The apartment had been allocated to them by their Katiba. Twana H.S. also told the police that F6 had always had a Kalashnikov on him, which was normal.

The officer testified to another interview with Twana H.S., conducted on August 12, 2022. At this time, F7 had been repatriated to Germany and was under investigation for being a member of a foreign terrorist organization according to Sect. 129a GCC. Twana H.S. gave information on F7’s actions while with ISIS. For instance, her son, F17, [redacted information]. Twana also stated that F17 did not [redacted information], who was not his biological father. W1 specified that while he had already sent a formal request to launch an investigation into Twana H.S. for violations of the GCCAIL to the Federal Prosecutor’s Office (GBA), he had not heard back, and therefore treated Twana H.S. not as an accused but as a witness at the time. [In Germany, according to Sect. 136 GCCP, at the beginning of an examination with the accused, the accused is to be informed of the offence with which they are charged and of the applicable criminal law provisions. The accused must be informed that the law grants them the right to respond to the charges or not to make any statement on the charges. Witnesses only have the right to refuse testimony according to Sect. 55 GCCP if it would subject them or their relatives to the risk of being prosecuted]. According to the officerr, Twana H.S. spoke about the training he and F6 received in the first months with ISIS. Twana H.S. once more confirmed in this interview that he and Asia R.A. lived in Raqqa for two months and that their home [redacted information]. F6 and F7 had been captured by Kurds in March 2017, according to Twana H.S. He also reported in this interview that he and his then wife, Asia R.A., had gone to Al-Mayadin الميادين in Spring of 2016, staying for a month or two.

As the other parties to the proceedings did not have any questions, Defense Counsel Ewald asked at what date W1 had submitted an investigative record to the GBA [According to German law, the prosecutor's office oversees investigations according to Sect. 152 (2) GCCP. If the police suspects that a crime was committed, they must transmit their records to the prosecution without delay according to Sect. 163 (2) GCCP. The GBA is responsible for criminal matters falling under the jurisdiction of the Higher Regional Courts, such as the present case, according to Sect. 142a CCA]. The officer  recalled that he had submitted a first report on August 4, 2022. Following up on this, Ewald wanted to know whether an investigation into Twana H.S. was already ongoing when W1 conducted the interview on August 12, 2022. The officer explained that while he had already submitted a report, the Federal Prosecutor's Office had not yet responded, therefore it had not yet launched an investigation into Twana H.S. W1 was then dismissed by the Court.

After the witness had left the courtroom, the Defense Team of Twana H.S. officially objected to the use of the Interview on August 12, 2022. The Defense argued that an Interview took place despite Twana H.S. not being informed of his rights according to Sect. 136 GCCP. According to Twana H.S.’s Defense Team, despite the investigation not formally being launched, the suspicion had grown sufficiently strong to launch an investigation, resulting in the commencement of an investigation. Federal Prosecutor Dr. Zabeck claimed that the objection was unfounded as a formal investigation had not been initiated. Defense Counsel Ameri added that it was irrelevant whether the investigation had formally started. What mattered was that the interview was being used against Twana H.S. in the present case. 

The proceedings were adjourned at 5:00 PM

The next trial day will be on July 1, 2025, at 9:30 AM. 

Day 7 – July 1, 2025

Today, the Court heard the witness [redacted name], F7, a German mid-aged woman, who entered with her legal representation. The Presiding Judge informed her of her rights and duties and noted that she should decline to answer any question that might incriminate her. The Presiding Judge began by asking why she decided to testify. F7 explained that she wanted to clarify that she did not live in Syria voluntarily and that she wanted people to be held accountable. When asked if she knew the two Accused, F7 responded that she only met Twana H.S. in the car and that Asia R.A. was veiled, so she would not have recognized the two on the street. When asked again whether she could identify them, she first answered that she assumes that they are the Accused and later clarified that they were Abu Abdullah [note: Abu Abdullah is an alias of Twana H.S.], a friend of her ex-husband, [redacted name], F6, and Twana’s wife.

F7 then recounted that she first saw Twana H.S. in Turkey, where they met. After that meeting, Twana H.S., F6, the witness, and their children took a car to a restaurant near the border. From that restaurant, they crossed the border with several smugglers. According to F7, Twana H.S. and F6 first met at a mosque on [redacted information] in Munich. Dr. Stoll addressed F7’s use of the name Abu Abdallah and asked how she came to believe that this was the man sitting in Court. She replied that he was Accused. The Presiding Judge asked whether she had ever heard the name Twana H.S. before, to which F7 responded that she first heard that name when the police mentioned it.

When asked whether she had seen Twana H.S. again at a later point, F7 remembered that after Twana and F6 did their ISIS training for around two months, Twana left for Mosul, Iraq. She recounted that F6 also wanted to go to Iraq, but F7 had rented an apartment, which she mentioned as the reason they had to stay in Syria. F6 was angry about this and hit her in punishment. Additionally, she believed that F6 and Twana held contact throughout their entire time apart. According to F7, Twana H.S. married and had kids while in Iraq and visited F6 and F7 with them upon his return to Raqqa [Syria]. F7 described the apartment where the Accused visited them as a [redacted information] apartment with multiple rooms. It was located across from [redacted information], near a [redacted information], as well as a [redacted information]. There was also [redacted information]. F7 clarified that it was not the same apartment that she had previously rented, as they had moved to a new place in Raqqa. Upon being asked about the timeline, F7 described that she arrived in Raqqa at the end of April or beginning of May 2015. When they moved apartments, it was still cold. By the time the Accused visited, [redacted information].

During the first visit, F7 was sitting in the living room with Asia R.A. and F6. The witness’s son [redacted name], F17, and Twana H.S. were in a [redacted information] across the hall from the living room. When asked, F7 clarified that Asia R.A. had removed her niqab in her presence, so she saw her face. At this point, the Presiding Judge inquired whether the woman was the Accused and motioned towards Asia R.A., upon which F7 confirmed that she was. F7 remembered that she and Asia R.A. had talked about their children and how Asia R.A. had met her husband. According to F7, Asia R.A. told her that her father had been an officer in ISIS (an "Amir") and arranged the marriage to Twana H.S., who had worked for her father. The Presiding Judge asked whether F7 knew more details about Twana H.S.’s role, and whether she had heard anything about a hospital or work as a hospital driver. F7 denied and added that the two women communicated in very simple English and few Arabic words (such as "Amir") as well as through gestures and facial expressions. She could not recall any specific English words that Asia had used.

F7 went on to describe the visit. She explained that she had prepared something to eat for the visit and that she had been very impressed by [redacted name], P1 [F7 used the name [redacted name], which is an alias the Accused had given to P1]. F7 described how P1 had cleared everything from the table and helped her. The witness also recounted that she told Asia R.A. what a wonderful daughter she had, whereupon Asia R.A. responded that it was not her daughter but a “Sabiya.” F7 explained that she did not know what that word meant, which had prompted her to call her husband, F6, to ask. He told her it meant "slave," which Asia R.A. then also confirmed. According to F7, she confronted Asia R.A., asking how she could take a nine-year-old as a slave. F7 further recounted that Asia R.A. responded that it was "halal" [note: permitted in Islam]. F7 claimed she had told Asia R.A. to raise P1 as if she were her own daughter. Following this, F7 described having an argument with her husband in the kitchen, shortly after which Twana H.S. and Asia R.A. left. F7 also recalled that during the visit, she went to the kitchen to do the dishes and found P1 scraping leftover food from used plates. F7 said she then opened the fridge and told P1 she could eat anything she wanted, by motioning with her hands and using the Arabic word for to eat (“kul”). She also instructed her son, F17, [redacted information].

After that first visit, Asia R.A. came to F7’s home again. During the second visit, F7 remembered that Asia R.A. told her that she had been right and that she would treat P1 as her own daughter from now on. F7 recalled that on that occasion, F17 also took P1 outside, and she instructed him [redacted information]. Subsequently, F7 described their third visit, which took place in Mayadin. She remembered that P1 was wearing a beautiful dress that she was very proud of. However, F7 also mentioned that whenever either of the Accused started shouting, P1 would tremble and appear afraid. The location of the last visit was described by F7 as an abandoned farmhouse in a remote location. F7 detailed that it might have been near “Qamishli قامشلي” or close to “Kobani كوباني”. She explained that to get there, you had to cross the river “Euphrates” in a small boat and drive through many small villages. F7 recounted that during this visit, Asia R.A had told her that she and Twana were going to Germany and that she would like to gift P1 to F7. According to F7, she refused this. F7 recalled that she was arrested some time after this visit by Kurdish military and brought to a camp. She confirmed that there were four visits in total, two of them in Raqqa, one in Mayadin and one in the remote location.

The Presiding Judge, noting that F7 also had a daughter, wanted to know how old her daughter was at the time of the visit to the remote farm. F7 recalled that her daughter was born in February 2016, and that F7 was arrested two or three months after their visit around the end of October 2017. Her conclusion was that the last visit was around July or August 2017, so her daughter was over a year old. Judge Stoll referred to F7’s police statement, in which she stated that the last visit occurred one or two weeks prior to her arrest. F7 confirmed that this was possible, noting that the intense heat during the visit indicated it was in July or August. The Presiding Judge proceeded to inquire whether F7 knew why P1 wore such pretty clothes during the third visit. F7 recounted how P1 told F7: “Look what pretty clothes I have,” by pointing and saying “mala jamil.” The Presiding Judge then asked if her son F17 talked to P1. F7 recalled that he talked to P1 several times and added that he spoke Arabic.

The questions then turned to P1’s role during the third visit. F7 detailed that the third meeting was at the Accused’s home and that P1 was doing the housework. She explained that Asia R.A. told her that P1 still helped with the housework but that she now treats her like a daughter. Upon further questioning by the Presiding Judge, F7 recounted that during the first and second visit, Asia was very strict with P1, but that she never saw her hitting P1. She could not say anything about Twana H.S.’s interactions with P1 since they were always separated by gender. Another question posed by the Presiding Judge was whether F7 had the impression that P1 was malnourished. F7 responded that she believed P1 was very hungry, reiterating that during the first visit, P1 scraped food off the plates and ate a large amount from the fridge. She also mentioned that after the second visit, F17 told her P1 was still very hungry, as she had eaten a lot during their outing together. Despite Asia R.A.'s claim that she would treat P1 like her own daughter, both F17 and F7 had the impression that [redacted information]. She could not remember whether F17 had formed this impression himself or if P1 had explicitly told him.

The inquiry then turned to P1’s origin. F7 indicated that, according to her knowledge, Twana H.S. had bought P1 from a slave market as a gift for his wife, Asia R.A. She explained that she had obtained this information from Asia R.A. and F6. Following this, the Presiding Judge asked F7 whether she knew more about Asia R.A.’s plans to go to Germany, leading F7 to detail that Asia R.A. had planned to leave with Twana H.S. and their baby, [redacted name], F1 and had told her that if she did not take P1 in, she would abandon her. F7 could not remember whether Asia R.A. had given an explanation for why she had a slave. This was followed up with a question about whether F7 recalled Asia R.A. mentioning that P1 was a nonbeliever. In response, F7 explained that Asia had told her, that she was “allowed to do so” because P1 was Yazidi. Following this, the Presiding Judge presented F7 with a prior statement in which she had said that Asia R.A. referred to P1 as "Kuffar" [disbelievers] and asked F7 whether she had known that word at the time, which F7 confirmed. The Judge then referred to another prior statement regarding F7’s confrontation of Asia, in which F7 had said that she told Asia R.A. that P1 was just a child and that she could simply raise her as a Muslim. F7 asked whether she recalled Asia’s reaction, but she remembered only that Asia showed no remorse or willingness to reconsider.

The Presiding Judge then referred to the second visit and asked whether Asia R.A.’s attitude remained the same, and asked F7 to go into more detail about the situation. F7 remembered vividly that the two women sat inside while the kids and P1 were on the terrace playing soccer. She also remembered that Asia R.A. and F7 sat inside together while the kids and P1 were on the terrace playing soccer. Between the terrace and inside, there was a lattice door that could not be opened from the outside, which the kids kept accidentally closing. She recalled that Asia R.A. had brought chocolate for the children and that they joked by teasing them with it while the kids were stuck outside. According to F7, Asia filmed this moment, and at that time, the two women got along.

***

[15-minute-break]

***

After the break, there was a repeated back-and-forth questioning by Judge Strafner about the names F7 used for Twana H.S. during her police interviews. F7 reiterated that she knew the Accused under the name of Abu Abdullah Al-Almani or Abu Abdullah Kurdi and clarified that whenever she talked about “those Iraqis” in her previous statements, she meant the two Accused.

Upon questioning by Judge Strafner, F7 reiterated that her conversations with Asia R.A. were in English, with some Arabic words, assisted by gesturing if they did not understand each other. Even when confronted with Asia R.A.’s previous statement that she does not speak English and her claims that their conversations were in Arabic, F7 remained certain that Asia R.A. did speak English, even if it was broken, and insisted that they mainly conversed in English.

When Judge Strafner confronted F7 with a section from her previous police statement, the witness remembered that she saw Twana H.S. again after their ISIS training. She recalled that Twana H.S. had accompanied F7 to the first apartment that she had rented in Raqqa, where she remembered arguing with her husband about the apartment and the fact that she did not want to have weapons in it. Upon being asked which of the two Accused took the initiative regarding buying P1, F7 explained that Twana H.S. brought her for Asia R.A., which corresponded to her previous police statement. She added that he bought her at an auction of multiple Yazidi girls, but could not pinpoint where she got this information.

When asked about other people she had mentioned in her police statement, F7 named [redacted name], F27, whose wife and kids were killed by a bomb and [redacted name], F28, a [redacted information] man. When asked about the pictures shown to her during the questioning, she remembered saying she would only be able to recognize the women but could not recall which pictures had been shown.

Changing the topic, Judge Strafner confronted F7 with her previous police statement where she explained that Asia R.A. had said it was okay to keep P1 because she was a “Yazidi devil worshipper.”  Following this, F7 confirmed that Asia R.A. had said “Kuffar” in Arabic, but she could not remember whether F7 already knew that P1 was of Yazidi faith at the time or how exactly Asia R.A. had described it. F7 confirmed another of her previous statements to the police, reiterating that she did not know about Yazidi-slaves within ISIS before her encounter with P1 and only came to know that it was a common practice when [redacted name], F25, told her about it as well as the persecution of Yazidi while in the camp together.

Continuing with the questioning, Judge Strafner wanted to know what F7 knew of the weapons, since she had mentioned a fight with her husband about them before. F7 recalled that all the men had complete weaponry, which she further clarified as a Kalashnikov weapon [note: a type of rifle], a bag of ammunition, and a belt with bombs. When asked, F7 explained that both of the Accused were armed with Kalashnikovs. When asked by Judge Strafner whether weapons were common among women, she replied that they were not and added that only women working for ISIS carried them. She clarified that women could only purchase them privately with an ISIS ID card. F7 remembered that Asia carried the weapon only during the first visit, but did not know where the weapon was kept in the meantime.

Judge Hamel continued and inquired whether F7 knew of a second slave of the Accused, which F7 denied. Judge Hamel circled back to F7’s description of the third visit, where F6 and F7 visited the Accused in their house and asked who exactly had screamed. F7 recalled that it was Asia R.A. As a final question before the break, Judge Hamel asked F7 to describe the pretty clothes P1 was wearing during the third visit. F7 detailed that P1 was wearing a very [redacted information] and repeated that she was very proud of it.

***

[80-minute-break]

***

After the break, Persecutor General Dr. Zabeck asked whether F7 was promised anything by the police in return for the information she provided, which F7 denied. The Prosecutor further questioned why F7 had told her legal representative that she wanted to provide this information only to the Prosecution. F7 explained that she preferred the prosecution and that due to her Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), she had thought that this information might help her and saw it as her “joker.”

The Plaintiff’s Counsel, Natalie von Wistinghausen, then inquired whether F7 recalled, whose wish it was to bring P1 into the Accused’s house. F7 replied that from the way Asia R.A. told her about it, it was her request: she wanted it, and Twana H.S. bought P1 for her.

Following this, the expert in child and youth psychology, [redacted name], E1, asked F7 whether she could say something about the mental state of Asia R.A. between 2015 and 2019. F7 explained that Asia R.A.’s behavior was always normal, that she had not seen her mad or sad.

F7 remembered that when Asia R.A. had told her that she was leaving for Europe, she had begged Asia R.A. to take F7 or F7’s children with them, whereupon Asia R.A. had answered in an “ice-cold” manner that Twana H.S. had prohibited this since F7 could testify against them when F7 was back in Germany.  When asked whether Asia R.A. had changed during the mentioned period, F7 said she had not. According to F7, Asia wanted to go to Europe and had told her she would treat P1 like a daughter, but the way she spoke to P1, including P1’s reactions, suggested otherwise. E1 asked F7 whether she could guess the reason why Asia R.A. wanted to go to Germany. F7 explained that a lot of people tried to leave Syria at that time. To the question of whether slavery was “normal” in this environment, F7 reiterated that she only found out in the camp that around every third person in ISIS had a slave.

Subsequently, Defense Counsel Ameri continued with the questioning, beginning by asking how old her son, F17, was currently and how old he had been at the time. F7 did not want to answer at first, but then testified that F17 was currently [redacted information] years, and that he was around twelve to thirteen years old at the time. Defense Counsel Ameri proceeded with questions about F7’s children, asking whether her children were currently in her custody, which F7 confirmed. He then inquired whether she had needed the aforementioned “joker” to keep her children with her. The Presiding Judge noted that he did not understand the question due to the lack of a causal link. Defense Counsel Ameri rephrased and asked if there had been any family court proceedings. F7 seemed visibly upset, replying that her children had been taken away from her at her arrival in Frankfurt [Germany], and that she had to fight hard to get them back. In response, Defense Counsel Ameri clarified that he had no accusations against F7 and expressed empathy for the situation. During multiple back-and-forth questions about the family court case, F7 clarified that there had been a family court case. She had only gotten back her children after the court case concluded and regained full parental rights last year. She added that the return of her children had nothing to do with the “joker,” that she had only called it that because it was something big. Additionally, she explained that she had known she might receive a reduced sentence, but she had not expected to be released from prison at all.

Defense Counsel Ameri shifted the topic to F7’s psychological state and asked whether she had a psychological diagnosis, to which she answered that she has PTSD from her childhood, as well as anxiety disorder and depression from what happened with her husband in Syria. Upon this, Defense Counsel Ameri asked whether F7 has memory lapses or was forgetful. The Presiding Judge pointed out that the first question encompassed multiple questions and further asked what Defense Counsel Ameri understood under forgetful regarding the second question. F7 explained that she had also talked to a psychological counsellor, who had told her that forgetting things like this was quite normal, especially if you restart living your life normally.

Following a hostile exchange between the Defense and the Judges, Counsel Ameri recalled F7’s earlier account that Asia R.A. had been veiled and asked whether women were usually veiled only when in company of other women. F7 answered that they would usually remove their veil only when in female company. The Presiding Judge followed by asking F7 if F7 herself had been wearing a niqab [note: face veil that leaves only the eyes visible] during their visits, which F7 could not remember. Judge Wosylus wanted to know whether her own appearance had changed drastically since then. F7 explained that her hair had been very short and brown at that time and that she had weighed 70 kg in comparison to her now weighing 59kg. F7’s legal counsel added that there are videos of F7 from that time.

Following repeated questioning by Counsel Ameri, F7 clarified that rooms were always strictly divided by gender and her son F17 was mostly with the men, but he could occasionally be present in both rooms. However, F7 did not remember him being in the same room with her during the second and third visit. When asked if it was allowed for a 12-year-old boy to be outside with a girl if they were not siblings, F7 noted that no one knew that they were not siblings and that F17 and P1 were outside together twice. Defense Counsel Ameri also wanted to know the exact wording when F6 and Asia R.A. told F7 that P1 had been a “bridal gift.” F7 recalled that they had used an Arabic word which, at the time, she understood since her in-laws had also given her one. Ameri followed up by asking if F7 considers a bridal gift to be something you receive from the in-laws. F7 explained that her in-laws were Moroccan, so there were cultural differences, and she did not know how it was in Iraq. Upon being asked, F7 explained that for her, the two words “bridal gift” and “dowry” meant the same thing but she did not know whether there were differences in Arabic.

Defense Counsel Ameri then inquired whether F7 had any knowledge of slavery prior to her time in the camp. F7 stated that she had heard of people owning slaves before the third visit but knew no one other than the two Accused. She reiterated that she had not been familiar with the term “Sabiyah” until her husband translated it for her and that she possessed no prior, deliberate knowledge of slavery.

When asked further questions about the communication between the women, F7 reiterated that Asia R.A. could speak English but clarified that she was unable to form complete sentences. F7 explained that she did not know what language Asia was speaking when she became angry during the first visit. She added that it could have been English, Arabic, German or a mix of all three because she had been very angry. In response to another question, F7 explained that Twana H.S. must have heard her from the other room, as she had been screaming. Defense Counsel Ameri referred to an earlier remark from F7, where she explained that she had told her husband that if he ever bought a slave, she would leave immediately, and asked if that would have been easy. F7 explained comprehensively that a Syrian family had tried to help her get out of Syria, but that it was basically impossible since she was white and could not speak Arabic. She further elaborated that her husband was aware that she could not leave. Defense Counsel Ameri asked in what language Asia R.A.’s conversations with P1 were. F7 replied that she thought it was in Arabic, but that she cannot differentiate between Arabic and Kurdish.

***

[15-minute-break]

***

After the break, F7 explained upon further questioning that her husband was very religious, and she could only leave the house with his permission. When asked whether the refrigerator was always stocked, she said it was, insofar as she could afford it, adding that she tried to limit expenses to 50 USD per month, resulting in plenty of vegetables but little meat due to its high price. When Defense Counsel Ameri asked whether meat was always available, the Presiding Judge inquired about the purpose of the question. Defense Counsel Ameri responded that he would not discuss it, to which Stoll remarked that he might have to. Ameri clarified that this was not meant disrespectfully. Stoll then observed that he suspected the questioning was drawing to a close, to which Ameri replied that hope dies last.

Subsequently, Defense Counsel Ameri asked F7 whether she ever spoke to Twana H.S. or heard him speak. F7 recalled that she had never spoken to him and only heard him speak in German in the car they shared to the Syrian border. When asked about her husband’s, F6’s, opinion on slaves and Yazidi, F7 could not remember specifics but noted that “everyone up there approved of slaves.” He recounted that her husband had defended Twana H.S. and said that slaves were “halal.” Following this, Ameri asked F7 to elaborate on how Asia R.A. had said “Kuffar” meaning “nonbeliever.” F7 was unable to provide further details on how Asia R.A. said it or how it was pronounced. However, when asked whether she could rule out that Asia R.A. had said it at all, she responded that she was sure that Asia R.A. had definitely said it.

Defense Counsel Ewald continued, asking how F17’s relationship was with Twana H.S. F7 remembered that her son had been around Twana H.S., but did not have a relationship to him. Defense Counsel Ewald then reiterated F7’s account of events where Twana H.S. and F6 came back from their three-month training and F7 had a fight with F6 about the weapons. Defense Counsel Ewald wanted to know whether this fight had been in Twana H.S.’s presence, which F7 denied since she would not have dared to say something under those circumstances.

Following two repetitive questions and one the witness was unable to answer, Ewald inquired whether the different names F7 had used, namely “Abu Abdullah Kurdi,” “those Iraqis,” and “that Kurd” all meant the same person. F7 confirmed that she meant the same person and clarified that it was common to have multiple aliases.

Following this, Defense Counsel Ewald and Defense Counsel Kämpf asked multiple questions regarding a “black dwarf” that is mentioned in F7’s files. F7 clarified that this was a part of her PTSD in her childhood and that she only had these visions accompanied by a tinnitus in her childhood. She further explained that after she moved into a care home at 16, she had gone to therapy. Upon further questioning, F7, visibly distressed, said that she would not like to answer further questions about her childhood, whereupon the Presiding Judge noted that he thinks this was sufficient.

Defense Counsel Ameri recalled F7’s police statement regarding the visits to mind. F7 explained that her son had forgotten to say that he went outside with P1. F7 then elaborated that F17 was present at the visits with P1. F7 and F17 talked about it, and her son recalled knowing that P1 was a slave. F7 further claimed that she was uncertain if her son really knew what a slave was. Judge Hamel posed the last question, clarifying that although she said her husband had treated her badly, she could not remember whether she had said he also hit her.

The witness was then dismissed. Before closing the session, Defense Counsel Ameri asked whether the Judges considered calling F17 as a witness, as otherwise he would file a motion. The Presiding Judge responded that they do intend to call F17 as a witness, expecting to hear him as a witness around October 2025. 

The proceedings were adjourned at 4:11 PM.

The next trial day will be on July 2, 2025, at 9:30 AM.  

Day 8 – July 2, 2025

On this trial day, the Court heard [redacted name], W6, presiding judge of the panel that convicted Twana H.S. in 2019 [for the verdict in the prior case, see Trial Report #02 and #03]. The judge reiterated the facts of the case as they were detailed in the verdict, admitting that a wrong date was noted in the verdict. She explained that the verdict detailed that Twana H.S. left Germany in May 2015. The judge clarified that this was wrong: Twana H.S. left Germany in March 2015. When asked, she clearly denied having made inquiries into information about a young girl living with Twana H.S. while he was with ISIS. The prior court deemed this aspect to be outside the scope of their case. W6 was dismissed without further questioning. 

The proceedings were adjourned at 12:19 PM

The next trial day will be on July 3, 2025, at 9:30 AM. 

Day 9 – July 3, 2025

Today, the witness [redacted name], W7, from UNITAD was heard. Mrs. [redacted name], C3, interpreted from Kurdish to German. After asserting the witness’s personal information, the Presiding Judge asked him to explain UNITAD’s mission and his own role within the organization. W7 explained that UNITAD referred to the United Nations Investigative Team to Promote Accountability for Crimes Committed by Da’esh. W7 further detailed that he started working for with UNITAD in 2019 as an interpreter, continuing as a data analyst and supporting investigations since he had regional and cultural knowledge.

Following this, the Presiding Judge referenced a note from August 28, 2024, asking the witness for details and his involvement. W7 mentioned that he brought a copy and handwritten notes, invoking the question of whether he had written it, what W7 confirmed. W7 went on to explain that in January 2023 the legal affairs department of UNITAD received a notice from the German authorities. The notice contained the names of the two Accused, information on locations in Iraq and Syria where they had allegedly been present, and two additional names: “[redacted name] and [redacted name]”, P1 [note: her actual name as well as her alias]. The authorities requested any available information regarding these names. The Judges clarified that it concerned a request for Mutal Legal Assistance (MLA).

W7 recounted that he focused on geographic analysis, examining locations where the Accused were reported to have been. His investigation concentrated on Al-Mayadin and its surroundings, as intelligence indicated the two Accused had been there from 2015 until 2017. W7 reported that he searched for the names of P1 in Arabic within the “interview” records of the Rescue Office. One questioning involved [redacted name], F29, who had been brought to the village of Bsaira near Al-Mayadin [in Syria]. The Presiding Judge interrupted, asking for the neighborhood where Bsaira was located, as it had been mentioned in a statement. W7 could not name the area, explaining that he was not familiar with Arab cities. During this exchange, interpretation difficulties arose, and W7 added that his Kurdish contains a lot of Arabic and that he would try to explain the Arabic words in Kurdish. He further stated that F29’s statement with the Rescue Office led him to [redacted name] [name unclear], F30’s statement, from which he concluded that F29 had been in Mayadin and F30 in Bsaira.  According to W7, he then reviewed Mayadin and its vicinity on Google Maps. He noted two nearby locations, [redacted information]. From this, he concluded that both girls had been in said area and added that both were Yazidi. He concluded that both girls had been in said area and added that both were Yazidi.

The Presiding Judge then asked how W7 had identified them. W7 recalled that he had determined their names and places of origin from statements they had given to the Rescue Office. When asked if this information was explicitly contained in those records, he confirmed. Following in-depth questioning regarding his search for information, W7 detailed that UNITAD had an electronic evidence database that allowed targeted queries for names and locations. He remembered that he had found the Rescue Office statements of F30 and F29 by searching the database for “Al-Mayadin” and “Bsaira” using three different spellings. The Judge wanted to know what he knew about “persons of interest,” to which W7 replied that it referred to the two Accused and was mentioned in the German request. When asked for further name “components,” W7 named [redacted name], F30 and [redacted name], F29. He continued explaining that F29 had also been questioned by UNITAD, which enabled him to confidently identify F29 and F30. W7 recounted that on May 22, 2024 he called F30. The Presiding Judge posed interim questions regarding the origins of the phone number and the nature of the Rescue Office. W7 responded that the mobile phone number was included in a statement F30 had made at the Rescue Office. He clarified that the Rescue Office is an entity in Kurdistan responsible for returning individuals and that they conduct interviews with returnees. Internally, UNITAD abbreviated it as “Rescue Office” but the official name is Rescue Office for Yazidis.

According to W7, F30 reported that she had been brought to Mosul, specifically to Bsaira and that she mentioned two other Yazidi women, [redacted name], F31, and [redacted name], F32, who had also been held captive in Bsaira and were originally from Shingal. She also reported that Kurds affiliated with ISIS had been present there. The Presiding Judge asked whether F30 had provided only the first names of the other women or additional identifying information. W7 explained that she had indicated the existence of other Yazidis whose names she knew and that he conducted research to determine their identities. When asked what kind of research he performed and how he reached his conclusions, he explained that he entered the names into the UNITAD system and found related interview records from the Rescue Office. When questioned whether there was only one person with those names in the system, W7 clarified that F30 had provided a second and third name as well. The Presiding Judge explained that this is what he had wanted to know earlier and asked W7 to share this information, whereupon he named F31 and F32.

W7 continued by recounting that he contacted F29 and asked her where she had been held captive and who she had seen during her captivity. F29 had previously indicated to the Rescue Office that she had been in Mayadin and near an oil field, which she confirmed as accurate towards W7. When questioned about Yazidis held there, F29 named two additional individuals: [redacted name], P1, and [redacted name], F33, (F29’s sister). When asked about P1 by W7, F29 described that P1 had been held captive by Abu and Umm Abdullah [note: an alias of the two Accused]. W7 further explained that UNITAD had prior contact with F33, but he was initially unaware that it was the same person mentioned by F29. According to W7, F33 informed him of two other Yazidi girls in the Mayadin area, called [redacted name], F34, and [redacted name], P2. Upon asking what F33 knew about the two girls, W7 received descriptions of them. When he reviewed the statements in the UNITAD system, he found a record for [redacted name], who he believed might be the F34 whom F33 had described, since she had been in the same area. A statement from the Rescue Office was available for her as well, including a phone number.  Upon establishing contact with the support of a relative, F34 confirmed that she had been in and around Mayadin. When asked by W7, she named other Yazidis in the area, including F33 and F29. When questioned about ISIS-affiliated individuals in the area, she mentioned Abu Abdullah Al Armani [alias for Twana H.S.] and Umm Abdullah [alias for Asia R.A.], recounting that P1 had been with them and that Abu Abdullah sometimes dropped P1 off at her home before leaving. According to W7, she recalled that P1 had told her that sexual abuse had occurred at her home.

Subsequently, the witness described that he identified P2 as [redacted name] and was able to associate her Rescue Office statement, in which she also mentioned Abu Abdullah. He sought further information through other Yazidi contacts and ultimately got her phone number. According to W7, P2 told him that she had been held captive by Abu and Umm Abdullah alongside P1. She also mentioned that F33, F29 and F34 had lived around Mayadin. While contacting other freed Yazidis to inquire about P1, the witness received the contacts for P1’s family and later found out that P1 was alive and still in captivity. [note: there was a notable reaction in Court, since until this moment, P1’s current whereabouts were unknown to the general public. It was not clear whether she was still alive.] W7 continued by saying that he had spoken to P1, the last time was last Sunday [note: on July 6, 2025].

W7 recounted that P1 was still influenced by ISIS ideology, because she was very young when first captured. He described that P1’s sister, [redacted name], F35, had contacted him in 2024 and reported that P1 had shared her experiences with Umm and Abu Abdullah with her. According to W7, F35 expressed that P1 sought justice for the sexual violence she had suffered that had occurred in 2016 when she was 6 or 7 years old. W7 shared that he knew P1’s current location but noted that he did not want to disclose it due to security concerns. He expressed that he had briefly summarized his course of action and that he had conducted this research analytically. He further noted that prior to his investigation, he had not been aware of the names P1 and P2, but that those names emerged through his inquiries.

***

[15-minute-break]

***

After the break, the Presiding Judge explained that there had been some issues with interpretation and that it had not always been clear if W7 had understood him correctly. The Presiding Judge elaborated that W7 used a lot of Arabic words in his testimony and that Mrs. [redacted name], C2, the Court’s interpreter for Arabic, and Mrs. [redacted name], C3, the Court interpreter for Kurmanji, were now sitting next to each other to help with interpretation. He instructed C3 to ask W7 if he could explain what he says in Arabic in Kurdish, and if he is not able, to discuss with C2 what an appropriate interpretation could be.

The Presiding Judge asked the witness to give other name components of the people he had mentioned. W7 mentioned [redacted name], F31, and later confirmed that this was the same person as [redacted name], F31.The Presiding Judge asked W7 to clarify the prior contact with  F32,  F31, and F33, whereupon W7 explained that the UNITAD team had attended gatherings of Yazidis who had suffered violence. During these meetings, the team introduced their work, explained the role of the research unit and provided contact information. Many attendees, including these three, later approached the team to share their personal stories. While W7 continued, C3 interrupted to note that too much Arabic was being used, and the Presiding Judge requested W7 to repeat his explanation in Kurdish.

The Presiding Judge inquired about W7’s contract with and the verification of F34’s, F29’s and F30’s identities. W7 explained that he asked for their names and compared them to statements of the Rescue Office before proceeding with further questions. During a series of follow-up questions from the Presiding Judge, W7 confirmed that F34 had reported that Twana H.S. would, at times, drop off P1 to her care before departing again. He could not, however, specify how frequently this occurred, only recalling that F34 said it was sometimes. During this exchange, W7 also confirmed that P1 had confided in F34 about being sexually abused by Twana H.S. In this instance, the interpreter for Kurmanji, C3, noted that there are different dialects in Kurdish and that the expression W7 had used, in Iraq, could refer to sexual harassment and rape, carrying both meanings. She explained that in Turkey, one would use a different expression to explain rape. The Presiding Judge followed up by asking if it is correct that when interpreting, one cannot differentiate between sexual harassment and rape, but it always meant something sexual, which C3 confirmed.

The Presiding Judge asked W7 to elaborate on his conversation with F35, where she had told him P1 sought justice for sexual violence. W7 explained that F35 had asked P1 where she had been, whereupon P1 had told her that she had been purchased by Twana H.S., initially taken to Bsaira, then to Syria, where she was subjected to sexual violence. P1 had said that the two Accused had inflicted severe harm on her and that she wanted them to be held accountable. W7 added that at the time of his discussion with F35, she was aware that the two Accused had been detained and that he assumed P1 had learned this from F35. 

Judge Strafner mentioned W7’s roles with UNITAD and inquired about his professional qualifications. W7 answered that he had studied English and public administration at the university and had completed two training courses regarding interview tactics and open-source investigation at IICI [Institute for International Criminal Investigations in Den Haag] as well as other trainings while working for UNITAD. Upon being asked by Judge Strafner if he found anything in UNITAD’s system regarding the two Accused, W7 only reiterated that he searched for people in the location of Mayadin and Bsaira and found the Yazidi girls and the Accused. Judge Strafner inquired about the format of the Rescue Office statements W7 described that there were pictures of PDF documents that the Rescue Office had sent them, some also as audio data or Word documents. 

The Judge then inquired whether the alleged rape of P1 and [redacted name] had already been mentioned in the statements recorded by the Rescue Office and UNITAD, specifically those from F30 and F29. . W7 explained that the Rescue Office’s questioning was limited to basic details about the person and their whereabouts before and after liberation. Regarding F29’s UNITAD interview, he testified that it had focused solely on what had happened to her personally. Judge Strafner asked whom he had contacted first, F30 or F29. W7 replied that he had first called F30. The Judge then referred to the fact that W7 had already received aforementioned names and locations from the German Federal Prosecutor’s MLA request and inquired whether these names had been suggested to F30 or if W7 had asked open questions. Judge Strafner then gave examples of open and closed questions and asked if W7 understood the difference, which he confirmed. W7 detailed that in the conversation with F30, he first asked if her previous statements to the Rescue Office were correct, which she had confirmed. According to W7, he then posed open-ended questions such as: “Tell me about the time you were there”, “Who else was present?” and “Which ISIS members did you see there?”. When asked, W7 confirmed that F29 had told him about P1 but clarified that F34 had provided more details about P1. Upon follow-up questioning, he recalled that he had also asked F29 open questions and that she had mentioned the name P1 as well as the oil field on her own accord. Regarding the names Umm and Abu Abdullah, W7 was no longer certain how they had first been mentioned. He testified that he thought they were named when he had asked “how many Yazidi and how many from ISIS had been there?” 

Just after a break had been announced, and before W7 left the courtroom, he was approached by two men from the public gallery. While the hearing was ongoing, one of the men had already openly commented in German, claiming that W7 was not using the correct word when talking about the sexual harassment or rape. When he talked to W7 personally at the start of the break, he did not speak German. 

***

[75-minute-break]

***

After the break, Judge Strafner continued by asking the witness whether, according to F34, the sexual violence that P1 described took place at P1’s home or F34’s home. The question had to be posed twice before W7 could answer that it was where F34 had been held captive, not her “home.” Subsequently, the Court displayed two pictures contained in the files. According to W7, the first picture, provided by F35, showed P1 at a wedding in 2013, where she would have been around three years old. Regarding the second picture, W7 explained that it had been given to P1’s family by a rescued Yazidi. He remembered that at first the family was not sure whether it was P1 because she was a lot older and her hair was covered, but were later convinced it was P1. Another image was displayed, which W7 identified as P1’s passport. Defense Counsel Ameri asked whether he had himself determined the passport to be original, whereupon W7 clarified that F35 had informed him that it was a picture of the original. 

After looking at the pictures, Judge Strafner noted that in the German case files, P1’s name was written with different spellings. W7 clarified that in English it can be written in multiple ways, but that it concerns the same person. Judge Wosylus continued by asking if everyone had referred to P1 by [redacted name], which W7 confirmed. He mentioned that P1 had received a name by ISIS, but he did not know which one. When confronted with the name [redacted name], W7 acknowledged that it appeared in the German MLA request, but he could not confirm whether it referred to P1. He explained that it was possible that the witnesses had mentioned it, but he could not remember. When asked if W7 knew whether P1 would be willing to testify, he replied that her family wanted her to, but that she was still imprisoned, therefore she could not.   

Judge Wosylus repeated an earlier question regarding the location where P1 had said she had experienced sexual violence. W7 first answered that he did not know the exact location of the house, other than that it was in Mayadin. Following repeated questioning, W7 testified that he had understood that the sexual violence had happened at the place where F34 was being held captive. The Judges then asked W7 to elaborate on his claim that P1 was influenced by ISIS ideology. W7 reiterated that P1 was captured when very young and indoctrinated with ISIS ideology. He stressed that ideological influence was common with many Yazidis who had been subjected to daily violence. He explained by exemplifying that according to F35 and P1’s brother [redacted name], F36, P1 sometimes called them unbelievers. He further added that whenever P1 spoke with her family, there was someone present “who controls her.” He stressed that being indoctrinated and forced to read the Quran for 10 years would leave traces on anybody regardless of who they are, leading Judge Wosylus to clarify that her question had not been an assessment but merely to ensure she understood him correctly. 

When Judge Hamel continued with a question about his cultural background, W7 explained that he, grew up in Shingal and speaks Kurmanji, English and Arabic. When asked in what language he spoke with P1 and the other Yazidi girls, W7 detailed that he spoke in Arabic with P1 since she could no longer speak Kurmanji, but usually he spoke Kurmanji with the others. Judge Hamel further inquired whether F35 spoke Arabic, which W7 confirmed. 

Following this exchange, Mrs. von Wistinghausen, the Plaintiff’s Counsel, noted that she had previously met W7 via video call because UNITAD’s London office had initiated the contact. W7 confirmed that he had set up the initial video call between Mrs. von Wistinghausen, and P2, created a group for this purpose, and interpreted during their first meeting. He emphasized that the conversation only served to get acquainted and did not cover P2’s UNITAD interview. 

***

[15-minute-break]

 ***

After the break, the session continued with the Defense Team’s questions. Defense Counsel Ewald recalled an earlier question to mind, when W7 had testified that he had first heard P1’s name from F29. Ewald then asked W7 to confirm whether it was correct that he had not connected the name from the German MLA request to the name mentioned by F29 due to the different spelling. Following repeated questioning, W7 explained that “[redacted name]” [note: the spelling in German documents] was an alternative spelling caused by English transcription, while the Shingal name was “[redacted name].” He clarified that the name, spelled in German documents, does not exist within the Yazidi community. He realized as soon as he read the documents - so from the very beginning - that [redacted name] referred to the name [redacted name]. The Presiding Judge summarized his answer and asked W7 if this was correct, which was confirmed, and then explained to Mr. Ewald that his question had been answered. 

A discussion about the translation of P1’s name unfolded, creating confusion among all parties to the proceedings about how to correctly spell and pronounce her name. Upon in-depth questioning, the witness testified that her name was translated to “[redacted information],” in Arabic as well as for Yazidi, however the spelling differed. W7 noted that in Arabic it was “[redacted name],” but Yazidi use “[redacted name].” 

Defense Counsel Ameri followed up by asking if the witness regarded himself as part of the Yazidi religious community, which he confirmed. Subsequently, Ewald went back to his first question after the break and asked why W7 had said that he had never heard the name P1 before its mention by F29, if he had immediately understood that the way P1’s name was written in German documents referred to P1. Impatiently, the Presiding Judge interjected and noted that W7 had already explained that he had not meant that he had only connected the German spelling to the name of P1 once F29 had said it, arguing that there was no contradiction in W7’s testimony. The Judge added that W7 had heard the name of P1 for the first time from a witness in his conversation with F29. Defense Counsel Ewald then asked whether W7 received further information to identify F29 during their conversation. W7 reiterated that F29 had also mentioned the name of her sister and that she was located close to P1. When asked whether names were the only content, the Presiding Judge interjected, highlighting that W7 had just said the conversation also involved information about locations. 

Defense Counsel Ewald then asked W7 to elaborate on what F34 had told him about Umm and Abu Abdullah dropping P1 off at her place. W7 responded that she had not told him much more, and he had not asked further questions since she had already agreed to be interviewed by the German state. When Defense Counsel Ewald asked who had taken P1 in when she was dropped off W7 repeated his previous answer. Upon questioning whether W7 had specific knowledge that P1 was being held against her will, and if so from what source, W7 explained that P1 had said so herself in a video call, calling out the full name of the person. Upon being asked who the person was, the Presiding Judge interjected that W7 does not need to give the name if security reasons prevented him. W7 replied that he did not remember the name; only that P1 had said that they gave her to this person. 

When confronted with a telephone call in February 2025 with police officer [redacted name], F37, Ewald explained that according to file note, W7 had told F37 in length about P1’s family situation. Defense Counsel Ewald read out part of the note, explaining that P1 was currently in “[redacted location]” [name of location unclear], invoking an audible reaction in the courtroom due to the disclosure of P1’s location.  Ewald further read out that P1 was married and expecting a child, highlighting that, according to the note, W7 presumed that the husband had an ISIS background. W7 explained that he does remember this conversation, adding that he avoided disclosing P1’s location, as he considered it a danger for her life. 

Upon further questioning by Defense Counsel Ewald, W7 recalled that he wrote a summary after every phone call, saved in the UNITAD system, and briefed everybody who conducted interviews, as was protocol. He specified that they would explain the mandate of UNITAD, ask for permission to ask questions and explain that everything had to be answered truthfully. Defense Counsel Ewald then asked whether the family has recordings of their video contact with P1, which W7 confirmed. W7 further explained that F35 had sent him the videos in a one-time-view format. Defense Counsel Ameri was interested in whether W7 still had contact with P1, which W7 confirmed, adding that he had contact with her two or three weeks ago via chat. Upon being asked what W7 had meant when he had said he has cultural expertise, he reiterated that he was originally from Shingal. He explained upon further questioning that he stopped working for UNITAD in September 2024. Ameri continued by asking W7 to provide further details. W7 elaborated that F35 had told P1 that he was from UNITAD and further explained that the last contact between him and P1 had been in a private capacity since he no longer worked for UNITAD. Upon further questioning, he also recalled that he had not told F37 any information he had gotten during their contact in a private manner. He also mentioned that he did have two or three phone calls with P1, but could no longer remember if their first phone contact was when he was still working with UNITAD. The last contact he had with P1 was via chat, where he had simply asked how she was doing. Upon being asked, he detailed that F35 had given P1 his contact information and that P1 had always initiated the contact. Defense Counsel Ameri asked whether he had told P1 of his testimony here, which W7 denied while acknowledging that he had asked P1 when she would return to her family. 

Defense Counsel Ameri continued by asking multiple questions regarding W7’s assessment that P1 was still in captivity. He asked whether W7 thought the decision to leave and return to her family was within P1’s power, which he denied. Ameri followed up by inquiring what he had meant by asking P1 when she could return. W7 clarified that his intentions were to help return someone currently in the hands of “terrorists” and asked whether Defense Counsel Ameri would not want the same. Ameri replied that W7 was not allowed to ask him questions, leading W7 to explain that approximately 6000 Yazidi were captured and he wished for everyone who was in danger to return to their families, adding that it was their right. When asked if he still had contact to other Yazidi, W7 responded that a lot of Yazidi still contact him for help since they do not know that UNITAD ended and that he refers them to [Former US diplomat Amb. [redacted name]], F38, who helps free Yazidi girls. 

Defense Counsel Ameri inquired whether W7 had told P1 about the ongoing trial, which he denied. When asked, W7 added that he had told F35 about the trial. Following a facial expression of a party to the proceedings, Ameri asked the Court: “was this question stupid now or why …” Mrs. von Wistinghausen then noted that F35 was a witness in this trial and Prosecutor Zabeck reminded Defense Counsel Ameri that it was unnecessary to interpret all of their facial expressions. Subsequently, Defense Counsel Ameri wanted to know whether F35 had told P1 about the trial, which F7 confirmed. Ameri asked about P1’s reaction. W7 recounted that he had already repeated multiple times that P1 had said that she wanted the Accused to be punished and to have justice. 

When asked whether W7 had been in contact with German investigators in the past two to three weeks, he denied. When asked whether he had followed the proceedings in the media, he said that there had been reports and that he had read that two young Yazidi girls had been abused by the Accused. When further asked if he had been informed in recent weeks about the specific matters on which he would be questioned, he said he had only received an email from the Court notifying him of his summons, which indicated the general subject but not the exact questions. Aside from the summons, he had received no further information. Defense Counsel Ameri then took note that he observed that W7 had been approached by two men in the second break and asked what they had told him. W7 confirmed that he had been approached and explained that one man had told him to use the term rape [note: the Kurdish terms W7 was instructed to use remained unclear. He also mentioned the term “ephistat,” which the interpreter was unable to translate, leading to W7 not changing the term]. When asked whether he knew the men, W7 replied that he recognized one of them as a Yazidi activist called [redacted name], F39. He added that he knew F39 from his time at UNITAD, where they had spoken two or three times about UNITAD’s activities. Upon further questioning, W7 said that F39 had contacted him last week after learning that he would be coming to Germany and that they had agreed to meet after today’s Court session. When asked whether he saw himself as a Yazidi activist, W7 denied and stressed that he did not know Abu or Umm Abdallah personally and that his objective was to perform his UNITAD duties as thoroughly as possible.

The Presiding Judge thanked W7 for coming and wished him a good return home. He also thanked C3 and C2 for their good teamwork on interpreting.

The proceedings were adjourned at 4:43 PM. 

The next trial day will be on July 8, 2025, at 9:30 AM.

___________________________

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