Inside the Twana H.S. and Asia R.A. Trial #09: Mobile Phones’ Truth

TRIAL OF TWANA H.S. AND ASIA R.A. 

Higher Regional Court – Munich, Germany 

Trial Monitoring Summary #09 

Hearing Date: September 2, 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 9^th trial monitoring report covers day 17 of the trial of Twana H.S. and Asia R.A. in Munich, Germany. On this trial day, W8, a research analyst with the BKA, testified about the mobile phones of the Accused, which she had analyzed and evaluated. She outlined the methodology used by the police and presented key findings relevant to the proceedings. Following her testimony, the Prosecution delivered a statement responding to and rejecting the Defense’s earlier claims concerning the credibility of the witness F34. 

Day 17 – September 2, 2025

On this trial day, the Higher Regional Court of Munich reconvened after its one-month summer break. After opening the proceedings, the Presiding Judge informed those present that the trial session scheduled for the following day had been cancelled. He noted that it had generally been difficult to adhere to the pre-arranged schedule, as witnesses are often flown in from abroad. 

In response, Defense Counsel Kämpf raised concerns regarding the role of [redacted name], F41, who had previously acted as a personal interpreter for witness [redacted name], F34, and is also the head of the Central Council of the Yezidis in Germany. Considering her role, Kämpf questioned the fact that she has been helping the Court in arranging witness appearances. 

Judge Stoll replied that F41’s involvement was purely organizational. Since she had contact with the witnesses, spoke Kurdish, and was able to coordinate logistics – such as finding out which dates were feasible for them to appear — she had helped to streamline proceedings. He added that he did not see any problem in her involvement. Kämpf, however, countered that F41 was situated “in the camp of the witnesses” and that the Yezidi community as a whole had a vested interest in the outcome of the trial. At this point, Judge Stoll gestured that such interest was to be expected, but Kämpf nevertheless suggested that there may have been improper influence on witnesses, for example from members of the public gallery. Judge Stoll dismissed this as unrelated to F41. Defense Counsel Ameri supported Kämpf’s concerns, and the Court agreed to revisit the issue at a later point. 

The witness of the day, [redacted name], W8, was then called. After being instructed of her duty to testify truthfully, the Court recorded her personal details: she is [redacted information] years old, a research analyst with the German Federal Criminal Police Office (BKA), not related to or affiliated with the Accused, and holds both a Magister degree in Islamic Studies and a Master’s degree in Security Studies. The BKA analyst was part of the team that analyzed and evaluated the mobile phones of the Accused. 

At the request of the Presiding Judge, the witness described the methodology used to analyze the Accused’s mobile phones. She explained that the phones were first examined by the IT-forensics team of the BKA, which used specialized software to make the data accessible. The devices contained extensive material, including contact lists, call logs, photographs, internet search histories, and tens of thousands of text messages. This material was then made available to the investigating team. 

The majority of the text messages were in Arabic and Kurdish. Because the sheer volume made it impossible to review each message individually, the team employed a Schlagwortliste (list of keywords) to identify potentially relevant content. Keywords included terms such as [redacted information]. This keyword list was applied not only to written messages but also to audio files, which were transcribed using speech-to-text software. 

Whenever a keyword was flagged, the corresponding content was reviewed in detail and, where necessary, translated. In response to a question by the Judge regarding the translations, the witness stated that they worked with two sworn translators who also hold security clearances: [redacted name], F56 and [redacted name], F57. The witness further testified that they have never experienced any issues with translations performed by either of them, and have worked with them for several years. 

In response to questions by Defense Counsel Ameri, W8 explained that the list of keywords was created by her and BKA lead investigator [redacted name], F37, based on information already available to them. She clarified that this list is not the same as the one used in the structural investigation, but was developed specifically for this case, drawing on their expertise and the statements of witnesses and other experts. W8 addedthat the keywords were first compiled in German and then translated into Arabic by the translators, who considered possible variations in expression. She explained that the translators briefly reviewed all chat messages and focused in particular on the sections immediately preceding and following a keyword, using their judgment to determine what should be translated. 

W8 then went on to explain that telephone numbers were extracted and checked against police databases to determine whether there were existing intelligence findings about the contacts. With regard to images, the phones contained approximately 100,000 files. The team attempted to review them comprehensively, including images saved from websites visited by the Accused. However, the witness noted that tens of thousands of the images had no apparent connection to the Accused or the case at hand. 

The witness testified regarding the most relevant phone examined in the case, a Samsung A7 Duo used by Asia R.A. during the period when Twana H.S. was first tried and convicted for terrorism charges. This phone contained a chat dated July 18, 2019 between the Accused Asia R.A. and [redacted name], F58, the wife of Twana H.S.’s brother, who lives with her husband in [redacted location]. In this chat, the two Yazidi girls P1 and P2 were mentioned. F58 asked Asia R.A. whether “the boys” (which the witness explained appears to refer to the brothers of Twana H.S.) knew about the girls they kept. Asia R.A. replied that she did not know, but that Twana H.S. may have told his brothers about them. F58 then asked about “the girl who had fled,” to which Asia R.A. responded that no girl had fled and that, in fact, there were two girls. F58 replied that the girl she was speaking about was a nine-year-old who had been “freed” by Twana H.S. Asia R.A. responded that Twana H.S. had “done it with her and therefore freed her before God” and further stated that “men are animals when it comes to sex.” 

Judge Stoll followed up on the issue of Yazidi girls being “freed,” noting that the witness [redacted name] F34, had also stated that P1 had been freed at the end. The witness replied that where such “release documents” [German: Befreiungsurkunden] were issued, this normally did not change the situation for the women involved; it merely meant that they were no longer to be sold as slaves. The witness also testified about other topics discussed in the chat. Money was mentioned repeatedly, with Asia R.A. asking F58 for money over several months, allegedly for Twana H.S.’s immigration lawyer and fines. F58 did not appear to believe this, and it seemed that Asia R.A. never received any money. In her efforts to obtain funds, Asia R.A. told F58 that otherwise Twana H.S. would be extradited to Iraq, that he feared for his life, and that German authorities had already passed his name to the Iraqi authorities. She even sent a redacted photo of a letter allegedly sent by Twana H.S. from prison to prove that he might be deported and feared for his life. F58 responded that if the German authorities had passed his name to the Iraqi authorities, the man in Iraq with that name would have already died. 

From this, W8 drew the conclusion that “Twana” is not the Accused’s real name, that he, in fact, has a brother named [redacted name] F59, who is in Iraq, whose identity the Accused stole and who would have faced consequences if the German authorities had passed the name along. The BKA analyst testified that she believes that his real name is [redacted name], which is also the name used for him in family group chats. 

Another chat on this phone was between Asia R.A. and [redacted name], F60, a police officer in Iraq with whom Asia R.A. appears to have developed a romantic relationship via text. In these exchanges, she often asked for his assistance, for example with formalities related to obtaining her passport. She texted that she liked wearing a niqab and had only stopped wearing it in Germany because she was compelled to do so. She spoke about her father, who had been detained by U.S. forces after the fall of Saddam Hussein. At one point, the police officer warned her that the Kurdish security services might hack into her phone and read their messages, to which Asia R.A. replied that she was convinced they were being surveilled. 

The Court then examined photographs found on the phone. The witness explained that not all pictures on the phone were necessarily taken or downloaded by the Accused herself, as the phone’s cache automatically saved images from websites she visited. This can provide an indication of the types of websites she accessed. For example, there was an image of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi dated November 6, 2019 and one of Asma Mohammed, the wife of Baghdadi, dated November 8, 2019. Since Asma Mohammed had been arrested shortly beforehand, the witness assumed that Asia R.A. had looked her up and read articles about her arrest. There were also photos of Baghdadi and Kayla Mueller, Baghdadi’s slave, suggesting that Asia R.A. may have read articles on that topic as well. 

In response to a question by Defense Counsel Ameri, the witness clarified that it is not retrospectively possible to determine exactly which websites Asia R.A. visited, only which images were automatically stored in the phone’s cache. The device also contained several personal photographs. These included an image of the Accused’s father, another male relative, the Accused’s (paternal) aunt [redacted name], F61, and a photograph of F61 with her son [redacted name], F16. There were also pictures of F16 with his children, as well as a screenshot from a video call showing a conversation between F16 and Asia R.A. In addition, there was a wedding photograph of Asia R.A. with her first husband from 2013, along with further pictures of the two together, including some in which she appears to be pregnant. The witness testified that they assumed that the Accused’s first child was from her first marriage. 

When asked by Judge Strafner with whom the Accused had contact, the witness listed her two maternal aunts, [redacted name], F55, and [redacted name], F62, as well as her maternal uncle, [redacted name], W2. In addition, she had contact with [redacted name], F58 and with [redacted name], F60. 

***

[15-minutes-break]

Following the break, W8 testified about a second mobile phone used by the Accused, Asia R.A., from November 2022 to June 2023. There were no chats of relevance to the trial on this device. However, the device showcased that Asia R.A. maintained frequent contact with her maternal aunt [redacted name], F55, her maternal uncle [redacted name], W2, and several people residing in the same refugee housing, including a man named [redacted name], F63, with whom she is assumed to have had a romantic relationship until her arrest.

The device also contained photographs of a falsified passport and a falsified certificate of citizenship [German: Staatsbürgerschaftsurkunde]. The witness explained that these were the documents the Accused presented to the city of Regensburg during an appointment she had independently arranged with the local immigration authority in 2023. During that appointment, the documents were identified as counterfeit.

The witness further presented a photograph found on the device that she believed shows Asia R.A. and her mother. In the image, a woman and a girl of approximately four to five years of age can be seen. If this photograph does indeed depict Asia R.A. with her mother, it would call into question the Accused’s claimed year of birth. Asia R.A. claims to have been born in [redacted time], with her mother having died later that same year when she was approximately six months old. A photograph showing her as a young girl together with her mother would indicate that she was likely born earlier – possibly around [redacted time] or [redacted time] – and would have been around four to five years old at the time of her mother’s death. This, combined with the fact that she has repeatedly posted on Facebook about missing her mother (whom she would not be expected to remember if her mother had died when she was six months old), raises questions regarding the accuracy of her reported birth year.

***

[60-minutes-break]

***

The third phone used by the Accused Asia R.A. was an iPhone 14 Pro, which she used from June 2023 until her arrest in April 2024. The phone records show contact with her maternal aunt [redacted name], F49, her maternal uncle [redacted name], W2, and the Iraqi police officer [redacted name], F60. A notable photograph taken in 2014 shows Asia R.A. with blonde-colored hair, which corresponds with the testimony of Plaintiff P2, who described Asia R.A. as having “yellowish” hair.

In addition, the device contained a photograph of a chat with [redacted name] – although the chat itself was not recovered – in which he again appeared to assist her in obtaining an Iraqi passport. The phone also stored multiple photographs of Iraqi passports belonging to other individuals, which had been sent to Asia R.A. via WhatsApp. Since these images were received shortly before the Accused submitted her own falsified passport to German authorities, the witness explained that she assumed Asia R.A. had requested others to send her these photographs in order to understand what such documents should look like.

W8 further testified regarding a mobile phone used by the Accused, Twana H.S., after he and Asia R.A. left Syria. This device had already been analyzed in the context of Twana H.S.’s first trial, but the current investigative team re-examined it. According to the witness, the phone’s first recorded use was on November 22, 2017 in the evening, which is presumed to correspond to the date of the Accused’s departure from [redacted location]. Call data from that day show that several telephone calls were made, possibly including one to a smuggler. Cell-site data place the device in [redacted location] at that time.

W8 explained that this exhibit is particularly useful for establishing location data. Based on the cell-site information, the Accused can be placed in several [redacted location] cities along the route of travel: first in [redacted location], near the Syrian border, then in [redacted location] and [redacted location]. From December 2017, both Accused appear to have stayed in [redacted location] for several weeks. In early May 2018, the first cell-site connection was recorded in western [redacted location], specifically in [redacted location], where the Accused remained for several days before moving on to [redacted location]. Subsequent network-connection data, including Wi-Fi logs, indicate continued travel toward [redacted location]. On May 18, 2018, the phone connected to networks on the island of [redacted location], where it remained for four days before further travel to [redacted location] by ferry. Data show that the Accused used on-board Wi-Fi during the crossing.

On May 24, 2018, the phone connected to a network associated with air travel to Germany, followed by connections consistent with travel by ICE train within Germany. The final recorded location of this route was Munich, the endpoint of the ICE journey.

According to W8, search terms found on the device indicate that the Accused was primarily focused on reaching Germany. Internet searches included queries related to refugee accommodations, housing, and flights to Germany. The device also showed searches and accessed media articles concerning the military situation in Syria and Iraq, the criminal consequences for IS members, and two articles about Yazidi slaves. In addition, one article about [redacted name], F7, was accessed. W8 further testified that the device recorded searches and research concerning forged identity documents on the darknet, instructions on accessing the darknet, and information on how to obtain or buy citizenship documents.

W8 further testified that several Facebook accounts were identified in the friends list of the Facebook profile belonging to the Accused, Twana H.S. Several of these accounts are believed to belong to his relatives. Among them are [redacted name], F64, [redacted name], F65, and [redacted name], who are presumed to be his brothers, the latter of whom the witness believes to be the brother whose identity Twana H.S. uses instead of his own. The witness also identified an account belonging to his sister, [redacted name], F66, with whom Asia R.A. was in contact to request money.

***

[15-minutes-break]

***

In their questioning of the witness, the Defense focused on how W8 was able to establish that it was, in fact, Twana H.S. who had used the phone and conducted the searches described. The Defense also asked whether it was possible that Asia R.A. had access to the same device. The witness confirmed that this was possible. The Defense further questioned the accuracy of the translations prepared by the interpreters, arguing that the earlier statement referring to someone being “freed by God” was nonsensical and may have resulted from a translation error. The witness confirmed that the relevant messages were written in Sorani and that they had been translated by a court-sworn translator for that language. The witness was then dismissed by mutual agreement of all parties.

After the witness had left the courtroom, the discussion regarding possible translation errors continued. Defense Counsel Ameri expressed doubts about the accuracy of the translation from Sorani and questioned whether the translator was certified for that language. He emphasized that there were significant and apparent concerns about the correctness of the translation and noted that the Court, as the presiding body, has an interest in ensuring a procedure conducted in accordance with the rule of law. Defense Counsel Ameri announced that he would be submitting a corresponding motion.

The Prosecutor then responded to the Defense’s statement made under Section 257 of the German Code of Criminal Procedure (GCCP) on August 5, 2025 [see Trial Report #08] which concerned the witness statements made by [redacted name], F34, on trial days 13, 14, and 15 [see Trial Report #07]. [Sect. 257 GCCP gives the Accused the right to make a statement after each taking of evidence (e.g. after hearing a witness).  Upon request, the Prosecution and Defense Counsels may also make a statement. Neither statement may pre-empt the closing speech.]

The Prosecutor first addressed the issue of the witness’s capacity to testify [German: Aussagetüchtigkeit]. She argued that F34 possesses full cognitive capacity and that, neither during the investigation nor in the course of the proceedings, has any evidence been presented to suggest that she lacks the ability to perceive, recall, describe, or reproduce events. On the contrary, the witness has repeatedly demonstrated that she is capable of doing so. The witness provided detailed, coherent, and internally consistent accounts. That F34 fainted on her second day of testimony should not be interpreted as indicating anything about her capacity or reliability, according to the Prosecution.

Second, the Prosecutor responded to the Defense’s claim that the witness’s own recollections may have overlapped or merged with what she believed happened to P1. She argued that the quality of the witness’s testimony shows that this is not a case of transference. The witness clearly distinguished between what P1 had told her and what she herself experienced, while also placing these accounts in the broader context of events. F34’s retelling of her dialogue with P1 was consistent across multiple statements and bore the hallmarks of an individual and authentic description. The Prosecutor also rejected the Defense’s assertion that the witness had introduced new details regarding P1’s rape. She clarified that the testimony in question did not constitute new information but rather a specification of what had already been reported to the police. The witness had stated during her police interview that the incident involved sexual assault. She affirmed that P1 had experienced pain when the perpetrator had “done that” with her. The fact that she later provided the precise Arabic words only when specifically asked how it had been phrased in Arabic is not unusual.

Third, the Prosecutor addressed the Defense’s argument that F34’s prior statements and in-court testimony were inconsistent. She noted that the witness met P1 eight years ago and only for a few days, and that in the overall context of her experiences this episode was of limited personal importance. Many of the supposed inconsistencies cited by the Defense were, according to the Prosecution, the result of misunderstandings between the police statement and the court testimony. For example, regarding the men who picked up P1, the witness had been asked in her police interview specifically about the “buyer” and thus spoke of one man. In court, when asked to describe the process of the sale more generally, she described that several men were present in the vehicle when P1 was taken. This does not contradict her earlier statement that there was a single buyer.

Finally, the Prosecution addressed the Defense’s claim that F34 was motivated by a desire to incriminate the accused. She argued that there was no evidence to support this allegation. Being personally affected by events does not mean that a witness is fabricating them. 

The proceedings were adjourned at 4:41 PM.

The next trial day will be on September 9, 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