Inside the Twana H.S. and Asia R.A. Trial #29: The Damage Done
TRIAL OF TWANA H.S. AND ASIA R.A.
Higher Regional Court – Munich, Germany
Trial Monitoring Summary #29
Hearing Date: April 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 29th trial monitoring report details day 55 of the trial of Twana H.S. and Asia R.A. in Munich, Germany. On this trial day, the Court heard E4, an expert on child- and adolescent psychology. She diagnosed Plaintiff P2 with PTSD and a recurrent depressive disorder. She further testified to a causal relationship between the rape by Twana H.S. and the PTSD. The Court also asked a few questions regarding possible psychological damage to Plaintiff P1, to which E4 could not say much as she had not assessed P1.
Day 55 – April 29, 2026
On this trial day, the Court heard [redacted name], E4, an expert on child and adolescent psychology, tasked with evaluating and diagnosing the Plaintiff [redacted name], P2. Following a brief break for the Presiding Judge to get a copy of E4’s report, which he had forgotten, E4 started to testify. E4 explained that she had had 9 hours to evaluate P2’s mental state. Normally, E4 would, in addition to the evaluation on the question of psychological harm, evaluate her patients for dissociative disorder and personality disorders. This was not possible as too much of the nuance in the questions would have been lost in translation. E4 also wanted to do a trauma specific diagnostic via a Kurdish questionnaire, but P2 cannot read well enough to answer the questions.
E4 found P2 to be polite and willing to provide in-depth information on her mental, physical, and overall health. E4 found abnormalities such as P2 being depressed, having anxiety, being exhausted, and easily distracted. There were no abnormalities in her childhood until ISIS attacked the Yazidi. As most of P2’s experiences with ISIS had already been dissected in court, E4 limited herself to assessing the psychological damage to P2. The separation from her family had already been traumatic, but additionally her father had been shot in front of her eyes. Then P2 had been in several differing locations, bought by several different men which triggered even more trauma. In addition, being subjected to physical and sexual abuse traumatized P2 even further. Having her name changed is also something E4 classified as psychological violence. The first penetrative sexual abuse was another trauma added to P2. After being freed, P2’s condition was very bad. It improved until the corona pandemic when the family had to close their clothing store. Her condition worsened again; she had problems sleeping and eating resulting in rapid weight loss and was plagued by anxiety. P2 said she had felt as if she was dead at the time. Her condition stabilized, but P2 still has depression, a disrupted day-night-rhythm, trouble sleeping, and anxiety. She wants to sleep as she does not love life, is what she said to E4. Her condition worsened again when she started testifying in court.
Assessing P2’s sexual history and current relationship to sex was impossible as P2 is very ashamed of the topic and froze every time it was brought up. What E4 could find out is that P2 has almost no knowledge of sex. She did overhear some women speak about condoms while with ISIS, but P2 does not know how children are made and does not know what consensual sex is. While P2 had wanted a family before she was abducted, she does not know whether she would be able to or want a family now, as it would be very hard for her to find anyone she would want to marry.
While P2 wanted to become a dentist when she was a child, she does not know what she wants to become now. The things she wants for her future are that she does not have to feel anxious anymore, wishes that her head clears, and that she does not have to be ashamed anymore.
E4 diagnosed P2 with PTSD and specified that in the new ICD, the ICD-11, there would be a new distinction in PTSD, with a complex-PTSD that is caused by multiple traumas over a long time. While P2 currently presents all relevant symptoms, because of P2’s young age, E4 abstained from issuing this diagnosis in favor of the more general PTSD diagnosis. P2 has common symptoms including flashbacks, avoidance, and hypersensitivity. P2 experiences anxiety and panic with flashbacks, sweating, and a racing heart. The most common situations she has to relive are the death of her father and the rape by Twana H.S. P2 avoids men with beards and situations that could trigger any memories of the abuse. When confronted with relevant information, P2 can react angry and with heightened vigilance.
PTSD frequently triggers depressive states, symptoms of anxiety disorders, and panic. These symptoms being present by themselves do not justify another diagnosis. E4 added that P2 does not have a dissociative disorder. PTSD can be accompanied by a lasting change in the handling and forming of relationships. It can also trigger a lasting change in personality, which it did with P2.
E4 also diagnosed P2 with a recurrent depressive disorder. While the presence of symptoms does not immediately warrant another diagnosis, the severity of the symptoms does justify the diagnosis in P2’s case. Especially the loss of appetite is not typical for PTSD and therefore led E4 to make the additional diagnosis. The recurrent depressive disorder has also been present since 2014 and was accompanied by suicidal ideations.
The rape by Twana H.S. of P2 was identified as causal by E4, but she could not say the same for the depressive disorder with certainty. While trauma is a criteria for PTSD, the surrounding issues of P2’s captivity and unstable living situation after being freed contributed so much that a causal relationship between the rape and the disorder could not be proven. E4 added that as P2 had been a child when taken into captivity, her development had been stunted. This posed and will continue to pose, a detriment to P2’s development and overall quality of life. P2’s ability to become an independent adult will be considerably more difficult. At the time of the assessment, P2 was not able to lead a normal life, being constantly plagued by anxiety and having to attend to her psychological health multiple times a day.
When asked by the Court specifically about P2’s ability to develop a healthy relationship with sex, E4 answered that as she did not know the normal development of sexuality in the Yazidi culture, she cannot say with certainty whether P2 will ever or would have ever developed a healthy relationship with sex. On an emotional level, E4 answered that P2 does have significant impairments developing romantic relationships with men.
In response to the Court, E4 said that the prognosis for P2 is very bad as P2 has now had a history of mental disorder spanning 12 years. E4 does not want to rule out a successful therapy as P2 is still very young and has a long time to experience life but emphasized how hard it would be for P2 to heal. E4 then emphasized how hard it had been for P2 to see Twana H.S. in Court, to which Twana H.S. scoffed loudly.
E4 said that while a sexual assault at the age of P2 can lead to difficulties with sex and relationships, it does not have to. P2 had had psychological treatment before, though she was not sure what kind of qualification the person she saw had. She took prescription sleep medication for a few months, which did not help her.
In response to Twana H.S.’s Defense Team, E4 said that if the rape did not happen, the causality does not apply. E4 clarified the timeline of P2’s life to the Defense Team of Asia R.A., repeating her behavior as a child.
The Court then asked for a general assessment of a child that had been captured when 4 years old and enslaved by the Accused between the ages of 5 to 7, stressed repeatedly that E4 had not assessed the other plaintiff, [redacted name], P1, but if there were any general assessments she could make.
E4 explained that some of the competences a child develops at the age P1 was while being with the Accused, are teamwork, playing with others, rudimentary moral competence and social competence. She said that if P1 was prohibited from interacting with peers, her opportunity for development could have almost been completely inhibited.
Defense Counsel for Asia R.A., Shervin Ameri, admitting that he had not listened to what was happening, asked if the expert was still talking about P2. The Court denied and a discussion about whether the expert was qualified and allowed to answer hypothetical questions ensued. The Court deemed this to be the case, under stern protest by the Defense Teams.
E4 was careful with any direct prognosis and stressed that she could not say whether P1 had developed any actual difficulties as a result of the treatment of the Accused. Ameri interrupted a question of the Presiding Judge to ask the witness whether she was even permitted to make any statements about a specific person solely based on orally provided information under professional rules and standards. The Court and the Federal Prosecutors Office laughed, pointing out that E4 was not a law professional, but that she would not get into trouble, and they objected this question. Ameri rephrased the question, resulting in another Judge asking him whether he wanted the GCCP [German Code of Criminal Procedure] explained to him by E4. The questioning continued with the witness pointing out that she could not make any concrete assessments on P1’s psychological state as she had not talked to her.
When the Defense Teams concluded their hypothetical questioning, Twana H.S. wanted to ask the expert a few more questions. His Defense Team immediately asked for a break. The Presiding Judge granted this and told everyone to stay seated meanwhile. Ameri objected vehemently, but before a discussion could unfold, Twana H.S. said that he no longer wanted to ask any questions. The expert was subsequently dismissed.
The Court then asked the Defense Team of Twana H.S. whether they could clarify their motion filed on the previous trial day regarding a retranslation of a specific part of P2’s testimony with UNITAD. A discussion ensued in which the Plaintiff’s Counsel asked the Defense to word their motions properly in the future to avoid wasting everyone’s time.
The proceedings were adjourned at 11:38 AM.
The next trial day will be on May 5, 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