Inside the Twana H.S. and Asia R.A. Trial #23: He Who Defends Himself Has A Fool For A Client
TRIAL OF TWANA H.S. AND ASIA R.A.
Higher Regional Court – Munich, Germany
Trial Monitoring Summary #23
Hearing Date: January 29, 2026
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 23rd trial monitoring report details day 44 of the trial of Twana H.S. and Asia R.A. in Munich, Germany. On the first trial day of the week, the Court heard a police officer, F37, familiar with the police statements of several witnesses, after agreeing on the dates of several added trial days. F37 spoke about the statements of the witnesses F29, F35 and W19, what she remembered of their statements and was asked a few questions by Twana H.S. himself.
Day 44 – January 29, 2026
On this trial day, the Court first spoke with the Defense about the dates for the remaining witnesses, experts as well as the dates for the closing arguments and the judgment. The Court had compiled an overview of the possible dates. After some back and forth, Shervin Ameri, Defense Counsel for Asia R.A., asked the Court if the compilation could be provided to the Defense as a physical copy. The Court broke to print physical copies.
***
[16-minutes-break]
***
After some discussion about the procedurally allowed pauses between trial days, the parties agreed that the Defense Teams would be presenting their closing arguments on separate days each, after the Plaintiff’s Counsel and the Federal Prosecutor's Office has presented their closing arguments.
Subsequently, the Court called the witness [redacted name], F37, who had been called to speak about the witness statements of [redacted name], F29, [redacted name], F35 and [redacted name], W19. Though F37 was present for a statement of P2 as well, the Court announced that they would summon F37 on another day to speak about that statement.
F37 started by speaking about the interview with F29, which was conducted in German and a German-Kurmanji interpreter was present. Other interviews which had been conducted by UNITAD were held in English. F37 read through those reports and did not notice any “significant deviation” to F29’s interview with her.
The Court then explained that they would like F37 to proceed with the interview of one witness at a time, answer all questions by the parties to the proceedings and then move on to the next interview. As they had already begun, they would like to start with the Interview of F29.
The Court first wanted to know if there had been a preliminary interview with F29, which F37 denied. F29 immediately recognized Twana H.S. as Abu Abdallah in a picture. F29 described him as married to a woman that treated their own Sabaya’s, a girl of 9 years and a girl of 12 years, very badly. She met them while she was with her sister [redacted name], F33, and [redacted name], F34 in a house in [redacted location]. F29 could not remember the name of the 12-year-old girl, she thought the name could be [redacted name] or [redacted name]. F37’s personal note, and the assumption with which the police proceeded, was that P2 has a sister named [redacted name], which could explain this mix-up. They did not speak further about this mix-up. F29 did know P1 under the name [redacted name].
F29 reported that P2 came from [redacted location], spoke Sorani, but almost no Arabic and had talked about being raped in general terms, though no specifics. While she did not know the name of the 9-year-old girl, P1, she knew the names of her sisters, [redacted name], F35, [redacted name], F48, and [redacted name], F79, which she had met while in captivity. F37 first said F29 had been shown two pictures, but corrected this, saying that F29 had only been shown one picture of P1. P1 had been treated very badly, she had not had moments of peace, instead she always had to take care of the household or the baby of Twana H.S. and Asia R.A. She was not even allowed to eat or shower. P1 had a scar on her hand from where Asia R.A. had poured hot water over P1’s hand.
F29 said in the interview that Asia R.A. had told her that both Twana H.S. and her had bought the girls together. F29 had described Twana H.S. and told F37 that he spoke Sorani but not a lot of Arabic, was a fighter for ISIS, had rifles with him, and wore Kandahari clothes. Sometimes, when the other men were not home, Abu Abdallah called one or both girls to him. There were no noises from the room the two or three were in, and the two girls did not say what happened while they were in there. After, Asia R.A. would be jealous and give the girls more work than usual.
F29 described Asia R.A. and told the officers that she spoke Sorani and Arabic, though it was obvious that this was not her mother tongue. The couple had one or two children and were cared for mostly by P1. The girls had to perform Islamic rituals and read the Quran.
F29 then described the house they were all staying in. F29 also reported that F33 confronted Asia R.A. regarding her treatment of P1.
F29 told F37 that F29 knew Twana H.S. had been a fighter for ISIS, because the other men in the house were fighters as well. F29 did not recount knowing anything about P1 being raped, while P2 only talked about being raped in general terms. Asia R.A. called the Yazidi unbelievers, the men laughed at them, but Twana H.S. did not speak directly to F29 about his views on the Yazidi. The Plaintiffs were already living in the house then. They ate once a day, sometimes twice. The family was allowed to eat fruits and vegetables, but P1 and P2 were not allowed to eat those.
In answer to the Defense Team of Twana H.S., F37 reiterated that she only told F29 that the police were questioning her as part of an investigation into Twana H.S. because of allegations of genocide and crimes against humanity. The Defense also asked F37 if F29 had described the situation where Twana H.S. supposedly removed and sold P1, which F37 denied.
The Defense Team of Asia R.A. did not have any questions. When asked by the Court, as is procedure, Twana H.S. revealed that he himself had questions for the witness. His Defense Team vehemently disagreed, to which the Presiding Judge recommended Twana H.S. to speak with his Defense Counsels.
After a whispered but heated discussion for about five minutes, the Defense Team of Twana H.S. had more questions for F37. The Defense Team asked F37 about a sketch F29 had drawn of the house. When F37 had described it, the Defense answered that they do know the sketch, to which the Presiding Judge asked if they wanted to show the sketch, which the Defense Team denied. The Defense did not have any further questions at this point.
***
[72-minutes-break]
***
For the interview with F35, F37 was not present. The police joined via stream and was able to ask questions through a chat function. The police did not say that they were from Germany and did not speak to the witness or the interviewers [from UNITAD] on site. They also sent a questionnaire to be asked by the interviewers.
F37 criticized the interviewer in both interviews of 35 and W19, as in F37’s opinion the interviewer had no relevant background knowledge on the Yazidi and did not adhere to the questionnaire. They spoke to the interviewer after the interview of W19, so in the interview of F35, she was already better in following the questionnaire.
F35 told the interviewers about being abducted by ISIS, how they were brought from one place to another, how the men were separated from the women and children until finally the children were separated from their mothers. P1’s and F35’s mother tried to protect P1 and their younger brother by putting herself between the ISIS members who tried to take the children. The timeline of F35’s description is impossible. When F35 and P1 were given to different men, they were still able to visit each other. P1 was then brought somewhere else, and F35 has not seen her since. F35 met F29 and F33 after being freed from ISIS. F35 could not identify the Accused.
After the Court read a short excerpt of the protocol of the interview, F37 corrected herself that F35 did not meet F29 and F33 herself, but that she knew them through her sister F48.
In answer to Twana H.S.’s Defense Team, F37 said that while she did not know the interviewer, the interpreter [redacted name], W7, was involved in the investigations from the start and therefore did have significant background knowledge. The interviewer did not follow the questionnaire closely and the chat was not always watched, the police did not get to ask all their questions. The family was not sure whether the picture of the older P1, sent by a smuggler, showed P1. They were about 90% sure.
As the Defense of Asia R.A. did not have any questions, the Presiding Judge again asked the Accused if they had any questions. To the apparent tension among his Defense Counsels, who immediately tried to catch his attention but could not, Twana H.S. had a few questions for the witness. The Presiding Judge urged Twana H.S. to confer with his Defense Counsel’s beforehand, but Twana H.S. told the Judge that “they could scream at me later.” The Judge then gave him the floor to ask questions.
Twana H.S. asked F37 several questions about F29’s description of the house in [redacted location]. Whether they had one or two rooms, where those rooms/the room were. F37 pointed out that she was not in that house and could therefore not say how many rooms it had, only that [redacted name], F29, had spoken of [redacted information]. Twana H.S. concluded that F37 could not resolve what he saw as discrepancies. Next, Twana H.S. asked if the witnesses had been threatened either in general or by colleagues of F37. F37 told him in response that when tasked with an investigation, it was her job to find both incriminating and exculpatory evidence for the alleged crime. She and her colleagues had no reason to threaten anyone.
F37 then spoke about the statement of W19. The same interviewer was present for this statement. F37 was the only investigator who joined. W19 recalled the same event as F35 until their paths diverged. W19 was not sure that the picture showed P1. In answer to a question of the Prosecutor, F37 answered that the reason the interview was conducted by a person with very little background knowledge was that most skilled interviewers had left UNITAD by the time the interview happened.
In response to further inquiry by Twana H.S.’s Defense team, F37 explained that as the interview with W19 happened before the interview with F35, F37 spoke with the interviewer to ask her to adhere to the questionnaire.
The proceedings were adjourned at 2:31 PM.
The next trial day will be on February 4, 2026, 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