Inside the Twana H.S. and Asia R.A. Trial #16: Between Scylla and Charybdis
TRIAL OF TWANA H.S. AND ASIA R.A.
Higher Regional Court – Munich, Germany
Trial Monitoring Summary #16
Hearing Date: October 21 & 22, 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 16th trial monitoring report details day 30 and 31 of the trial of Twana H.S. and Asia R.A. in Munich, Germany. On the first trial day, the Court heard W19 who is a [redacted information] of P1. The witness gave a detailed although, according to the Defense, contradictory testimony of her own experiences of mistreatment and abuse under ISIS captivity and particularly on her knowledge of the [redacted information] P1, who, as the witness believes, has now [redacted information]. After the witness had to identify P1 with three photographs, she mentioned that [redacted information]. This not only interested the Court and Defense, but also brought the fact to the surface that archived [redacted information] F36, and P1’s [redacted information], which include [redacted information], exist.
On the second day, the Court heard statements by the Defense in accordance with Sect. 257 GCCP, which claimed that W19’s testimony would be too contradictory to be used as permissible evidence, especially when comparing the witness’s testimony to the protocol of her UNITAD hearing. Additionally, the Court announced that Witness Counsel F40, gained access to [redacted information]. Along with a newly planned testimony of F36, those will be shown in court next week.
Day 30 – October 21, 2025
On this trial day, the Court heard [redacted name], W19, who is a [redacted information] of P1 and was flown into Munich from [redacted location]. The witness was represented by Counsel [redacted name], F40, who also represented F29 and F34, and accompanied by her own interpreter, [redacted name], F41, while [redacted name], C3 interpreted W19’s testimony from Kurmanji.
The Presiding Judge started the hearing by informing W19 of her rights and duties and asked for her personal details. W19 told the Court that she was born on [redacted time], and is [redacted information] years old. She currently is a student and does not have any familial relations with either of the Accused.
The Presiding Judge then prompted W19 to tell the Court in her own words why she thinks she is testifying as a witness today. W19 responded that the Accused did plenty of injustice and violence to the Yazidi people, but especially to her [redacted information] [redacted name], P1. According to the witness, her [redacted information] [redacted name], F35, told her about P1 having been a victim of the Accused. W19 testified to not have spoken in detail with her [redacted information] about the trial and to generally not know much. To clarify who W19 was speaking of, the Court then asked her to name all her [redacted information] and their ages. W19 answered with naming P1 and F35 being [redacted information], sister [redacted name], F77, being [redacted information], sister [redacted name], F78, being [redacted information], sister [redacted name], F79, being [redacted information], sister [redacted name], F48, being [redacted information], brother [redacted name], F36, being [redacted information], brother [redacted name], F80, being [redacted information], and brother [redacted name], F81, being [redacted information]. W19’s mother, her three brothers, and F35 live together with the witness, while F48 lives in a different place in [redacted location]. To the question of the Court where F77 lived, the witness responded with [redacted location] and started crying, while she specified her preference to not mention any more countries during her testimony.
Following W19’s description of her [redacted information], the Presiding Judge asked her to tell the Court about her own abduction by ISIS. W19 started explaining how ISIS members abducted her family during the eighth month of 2014 and split up her father from the rest of her siblings first, and then her mother, brothers, and sisters from each other. According to W19’s testimony, every family member was paired with an ISIS family, which each was “very awful” and did “plenty of injustice” to them. The witness then testified that she experienced nothing positive during these times, was beaten up on a regular basis, had to stay outside of the house in the winter and was made responsible for cooking food, cleaning the house, and taking care of the children. She described how she was first in an ISIS prison with almost no water and food for two months, then was brought to an Imam to learn Islamic prayers and rituals under strict force, after which she was brought to the ISIS family of [redacted name], F82, who lived in Mosul. F82 and his wife [redacted name], F83, forced her to take care of their children [redacted name], F84, and [redacted name], F85, while the witness herself was only seven years old, as she testified. W19 was not allowed to shower with warm water and struggled to cook, since she was too young, which led to her getting beaten up. Without any interruption by the Court, W19 continued with her testimony and recalled that F82 brought her to a village on several occasions, where she met many Yazidi girls, among them [redacted information] F78 and P1. She remembered that Ramadan was one of these occasions, on which she was forced by F82 to fast.
After having spoken in a slow and chronologically abrupt manner for almost 45 minutes, W19 requested a break, which the Court subsequently allowed.
***
[27-minutes-break]
***
After the break, the Court showed interest in W19’s knowledge of P1’s age during the abduction, to which the witness responded that she was “almost four, but still three years old.” The Presiding Judge then asked about the specific names of ISIS men that her [redacted information] were first brought to. The witness recalled that her sister F35 was bought by [redacted name], F86, that her sister F78 was bought by [redacted name], F87, and that her sisters F77 and P1 were bought by [redacted name], F90. The Court questioned if P1 was separated from her sister F77 or if she really came into the same ISIS family of F90, which the witness could not answer. Also, F90’s physical appearance was something W19 could not recall. She did, however, describe F87 as “fat and tall with a long beard” and F82, the man she was held captive by, as “very tall.” W19 then testified that she lived under F82 for one year, described how F82 only had one wife, how he gave her the new name [redacted name], and that F82 lived next to a sweets shop.
The Court followed with showing particular interest in W19’s encounters with P1 during this year under F82. The witness explained that she, P1, F35, and F77 visited her sister F78 several times, as F78’s ISIS family did not allow her to step outside of their house. This was also the setting in which the witness saw P1 for the very last time. The Court then wanted to know if the witness had any contact with P1 after W19 had been freed. W19 shouted, visibly emotional, “never again,” to which Counsel F40 requested a break, which was rejected by the witness herself. The Presiding Judge repeated the question, and W19 answered that she has been [redacted information]. As her [redacted information], W19 testified that she did not know anything about P1’s current circumstances. W19, however, knows that it is “very bad” where P1 lives. To the Presiding Judge’s question if P1 is still being held captive, the Defense Team of Asia R.A. protested that the question would be suggestive and thus impermissible. The question was still translated by the interpreter, and the witness responded with “yes.” Furthermore, W19 testified that P1 must be with an ISIS family, who treats her very badly and has no money for food, although P1 has a daughter now. The Court asked what language P1 would use [redacted information] with Arabic, which she herself understands a little bit, and practically no Kurmanji. Furthermore, W19 testified that she does not know where P1 currently lives and only answered the question of the Court with “[redacted location],” and that F35 might know.
After the Court asked the witness to leave the courtroom for the lunch break, the Presiding Judge announced that the following questioning by the Defense Teams will happen via the Presiding Judge, as the witness is still underage. Every question will be addressed to the Judges first, then approved and followingly asked by the Presiding Judge directly to the witness.
***
[99-minutes-break]
***
After the break, the Court asked W19 why she had to leave F82’s house at one point. W19 responded that F82 was eventually killed by an air strike, after which she was brought to F82’s father, where her miserable life continued. The witness testified that she was never explicitly told why she had to work for the ISIS families, but was insulted as Yazidi, which she then logically connected as the reason for her mistreatment. Additionally, the Court asked if she was called “servant” or “slave” by the ISIS members. Before the witness was able to respond with “yes,” the court interpreter C3 intervened, specifying that Kurmanji does not differentiate between the two terms.
The Court then returned to questions about P1 and wanted to know if W19 knew of any other Yazidi girls that P1 had met while having been held captive. The witness was able to name a female friend of P1 called [redacted name], F88, as well as [redacted name], F33, and [redacted name], F29.
The Presiding Judge subsequently announced the display of two photographs for the witness to comment on. The first photograph, visibly shown to the whole courtroom via projectors, presented a young girl with blond hair and a blue dress, looking up to the lens in a confused manner with an open standing mouth. W19 was able to identify the girl as P1 and mentioned to know the photograph, as her mother had shown it to her. It would be a picture of the wedding of her uncle from her father’s side. The Defense Team of Asia R.A. then wanted to know when W19 had seen the photograph for the first time, specifically if [redacted name], W7, from UNITAD had shown it to her, which W19 was not able to answer clearly. The second picture presented a young girl with a traditional dress and a hijab, who W19 immediately identified as P1 in one of the ISIS camps. In response to this, the Presiding Judge confronted the witness with her UNITAD hearing statement, in which she claimed that the girl was not P1. W19 defended her testimony and explained that [redacted information]. This would have happened about a year ago. The [redacted information] further interested the Court, which followed with several questions on the exact procedure of the [redacted information]. In response, W19 testified that she was present during the [redacted information], as she can speak Arabic fluently, which the witness could not understand. She further explained that P1 did not leave a positive impression on her; she seemed sad and scared [redacted information]. To the Court’s question if F35 had told the witness what the [redacted information].
After the viewing, the Defense Team of Twana H.S. raised that the UNITAD protocol does not include the first photograph. The Defense Counsel then asked the witness if W7 showed her both photographs during, and not outside of, the UNITAD hearing, which W19 confirmed. The witness even remembered having signed both photographs, and confirmed to not have had contact with W7 prior to this hearing.
***
[22-minutes-break]
***
Upon the witness’s return, the Court repeated the question if both photographs were really shown to W19 during the UNITAD hearing. Now, W19 responded that she was only certain about the second picture.
The Prosecutors also showed interest in the [redacted information], following up with further questions. Now, W19 testified that “the man that she married” as well as her mother and others were present during [redacted information]. The Presiding Judge quickly intervened and commented that this would not add up with her testimony from just a few minutes ago, to which W19 specified that there [redacted information] with P1. Although P1 usually wore the hijab, it was easy for the witness to identify P1 during [redacted information], as she looked just like in the photographs.
The Court then proceeded with showing a third photograph, which pictured two young girls with black puffer jackets and black and white leopard print hijabs, which supposedly had been shown to W19 during the UNITAD hearing instead of the first viewed photograph from this hearing. W19 confirmed this, while she remained unsure where she knew the first photograph from.
Thereafter, the Court turned to the Defense Counsels. The Defense Team of Twana H.S. started with more questions on the [redacted information], specifically why the witness thought that P1 was not allowed to [redacted information] by herself. W19 responded that she herself concluded this, as she was able to hear many voices in the background during the calls with P1 that made her suspicious. Additionally, she described how she knows from her own experience with ISIS families that the girls are not allowed to leave the house, which she expects is true for P1. P1 does, however, take her hijab off when she is in the house, as this is allowed. The Defense Team of Asia R.A. then changed the topic and asked the witness about the exact birth date of her [redacted information] P1. When W19 was only able to respond with [redacted time], the Defense visibly got annoyed and inquired further. W19 continued testifying that she does not know and was only told that date by her [redacted information]. While she did not know the season of P1’s birth, she mentioned that she herself was born in winter. The witness then testified that she had only spoken with her sister F35 about this trial when she was summoned as a witness, and since then to no other person, not even [redacted information] who she traveled to Germany and shared a hotel with. She also did not speak to anyone of the Yazidi community since arriving in Germany, and her preparation ahead of the trial only consisted of the Witness Counsel F40 explaining to her the set-up of the courtroom.
To the Defense’s question if P1 ever said she still felt like she was being held in captivity, W19 explained that her [redacted information] said she felt safe now being in a secure place and married. She would not feel as if she was with ISIS anymore, W19 further replied. The witness, however, quickly added to [redacted information]. She certainly is still with an ISIS family, which wants to do injustice to Yazidis. After the Defense asked why W19 would think that way, the witness responded that her hijab is a sign of force: “This is Islam. If they see you without coverage, they will kill you.” Although the witness acknowledged to never have directly heard this from P1, she told the Court that ISIS still exists in [redacted location], as “[redacted information].” According to W19, F35 even saw an ISIS flag [redacted information]. Generally, W19 explained that P1 does not [redacted information], as this is the exact group that did so much injustice to her. To this, the Presiding Judge noted that this particular testimony was a conclusion of the witness and not something P1 had actively said in her presence.
When the Defense Team of Asia R.A. questioned where P1 was geographically located [redacted information], witness counsel F40 intervened. She explained that there have been [redacted information], and that her client would not give an answer to such a question to protect P1.
As this brought plenty of upheaval to the courtroom, specifically to the bench of the Defense, the Court announced a break.
***
[18-minutes-break]
***
After the break, a discussion between the Defense Counsel of Asia R.A. and witness counsel F40 ensued, during which the Defense wanted to specifically know [redacted information]. When W19 got visibly confused and responded that she would not know of anything, F40 repeated that this information would be too dangerous to share openly in court. Subsequently, the Presiding Judge intervened and designated this information as not procedurally relevant, to which the Defense complained that the Court could theoretically summon P1. Then, the Prosecutors spoke up and explained that mutual assistance would not work between [redacted location] and Germany, and that the German embassy in [redacted location] is currently closed.
In response to further questions by the Defense, W19 then testified that P1 never explained how she had gotten out of the last ISIS camp and how she married her current husband, but also mentioned that she is not aware if those questions had ever been asked by her sister F35. The Defense of Asia R.A. then openly announced to still have a few questions that serve the purpose of comparability toward future witnesses. These once again revolved around the [redacted information] with P1, which the witness answered quickly, mostly confirming that only her [redacted information] F35 ever spoke with P1, that P1’s child was never [redacted information], and that P1 said several times that she would like [redacted information], although not specifying why she would not [redacted information]. W19 further testified that F35 told her that P1 would not be brave enough to [redacted information], as she would then get killed by Yazidi men, as P1’s husband had explained to her. In response, F35 had then told P1 [redacted information]. It would just be a manipulation of P1’s own husband that she should not listen to. The Defense then asked the witness if she wishes P1 to return, which W19 strongly responded to with “very much.” According to her own impressions, W19 is not, however, involved in any family talks to [redacted information], as she is too young for these topics. As such, the witness does not know what has been discussed exactly among her family members.
After this, W19 testified in response to one question by the Defense that her brother F36 and her mother had also been present [redacted information]. While F35 directly translated for her mother to P1, F36 would know a little Arabic and was able to address P1 directly. W19 witnessed that from the room next door. To this, the Defense started to loudly shout that the testimony of the witness seems completely contradictory, which the Presiding Judge quickly shut down.
Before the witness was dismissed, the Court announced that W19’s [redacted information] F35 will testify next week, and urged W19 to not discuss details from today’s hearing with her [redacted information] for her own benefit.
The last ten minutes of the hearing day were spent with the Defense Counsels announcing statements in accordance with Sect. 257 GCCP regarding W19, which the Presiding Judge allowed to be given until the end of trial day 31 [October 22, 2025]. The Prosecution announced counterstatements, subsequently.
With the witness having left the room, the Defense of Asia R.A. once again asked where the information that P1 has been [redacted information] was coming from, to which witness counsel F40, who remained in the courtroom, explained that she received such information [redacted information], “If you don’t pay, we will cut her head off.” F40 announced she would submit the specific [redacted information] to the Court as soon as possible.
The Court adjourned the proceedings at 4:50 PM.
The next trial day will be on October 22, 2025, at 9:30 AM.
Day 31 – October 22, 2025
The Court started the second session of this week with hearing a statement by the Defense Team of Twana H.S. in accordance with Sect. 257 GCCP that a conviction of the Accused cannot be based on yesterday’s testimony of W19. The Defense’s statement listed four reasons: (1) W19 did not testify in direct relation to the Accused in any way and gave contradictory statements with regards to the names of ISIS members she and her [redacted information] were paired with. W19’s testimony was especially different from the statements she made to UNITAD in September 2023. (2) W19 did not remember when one of the photographs was shown to her for the first time and first claimed that it was presented to her during the UNITAD hearing, which would not be correct. (3) W19’s testimony on the video calls between her [redacted information] P1 and F35 and her [redacted information] F36 remained contradictory. How could the witness have all this information and believe that P1 is [redacted information] when she does not understand Arabic, claimed to have never directly spoken with P1, and did not communicate with her [redacted information]? (4) It would be implausible that W19 did not speak to any of her [redacted information], especially F35 or F36, whom she travelled to Germany with, about the trial and ahead of yesterday’s testimony, as she claimed.
In response, the Prosecution counter-stated that (1) One must distinguish between testimony related to core events and to events peripheral to the witness when evaluating their trustworthiness. While W19’s UNITAD hearing included the identification of 40 ISIS members and their families as well as detailed personal descriptions of her direct circumstances during the time when she was held captive, most of yesterday’s questions referred to the witness’s [redacted information] and would fall into the peripheral bracket. (2) W19 mentioned many personal events that can be exactly confirmed with the UNITAD report; only very few rather irrelevant descriptions seemed to differ. (3) The fact that W19 properly testified for the first time yesterday on the contact with [redacted information] P1 could relate to the note in the UNITAD protocol that W19 was “tired and exhausted and just wanted the hearing to end.” Additionally, it would have been easy for the witness to add dramatic descriptions of events of violence and mistreatment when testifying about P1’s circumstances, if she made up that part of her testimony, which she did not do and stayed rather neutral and limited in her description of what was known to her.
Without any comments on these statements, the Presiding Judge announced “new circumstances.” After yesterday’s hearing, witness counsel F40 told the Judge that [redacted information] and will be translated and filed in court next week. The Presiding Judge also added that [redacted information] F36 actually sat in the visitors’ block during yesterday’s testimony of her sister W19, which was not noted by the Court earlier.
The Court then decided to schedule F36 as an additional witness, although both the Court and Defense disputed the scheduling, as F36 would fly out of Germany on October 30. According to the Court, rescheduling the flight for [redacted information] that are currently present in Germany would be too costly. To discuss this further, the Presiding Judge announced a break.
***
[50-minutes-break]
***
To facilitate both F35’s and F36’s testimony, the Court decided that the hearings for next week will start at 9:00 AM and likely last until 8:00 PM on at least one of the two trial days. The Court established that [redacted information] F35 will testify first, and [redacted information] F36 should only testify regarding the [redacted information]. Both witnesses will get witness counsel support by F40.
Without further comments, the proceedings were adjourned at 11:15 AM.
The next trial day will be on October 28, 2025, at 9:00 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