Inside the Twana H.S. and Asia R.A. Trial #32: Closing Arguments of The Plaintiffs and The Defense of Twana H.S.
TRIAL OF TWANA H.S. AND ASIA R.A.
Higher Regional Court – Munich, Germany
Trial Monitoring Summary #32
Hearing Date: May 19 & 20, 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 32nd trial monitoring report details days 58 and 59 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 the closing arguments of the Plaintiffs’ Counsel. She recalled the suffering that the two Plaintiffs, P1 and P2, had to endure by the Accused. She further argued that they had been targeted because of their age as well as their gender and their status as Yazidi, submitting a legal notice to the Court to consider the “age” as an applicable and impermissible ground on which the Plaintiffs were persecuted under the provision of crime against humanity.
On the second trial day of this week, the Defense of Twana H.S. read their closing statement. While they acknowledged that Twana H.S. had enslaved as well as physically abused the victims, they argued that the requirements for the crime of genocide were not met. They requested that Twana H.S. be sentenced to a reduced imprisonment of 9 years and 6 months, with 4 years and 3 months already served. They also argued that the Court should not order preventive detention for Twana H.S., which would prevent his release after serving the prison time based on the risk of reoffending and the Accused being a danger to society.
Day 58 – May 19, 2026
On this trial day, the Plaintiff’s Counsel provided her closing arguments. She first recalled the number of witnesses and experts that had been heard as well as how much time it took to hear them. After the trial ended, the Plaintiffs’ Counsel anticipated, the public will lose interest in this case. Everyone who attended the hearings will devote their time to other things, but this will not be possible for [redacted name], P2. The proceedings had revealed the consequences of the inhumane treatment she had suffered at the hands of the Accused.
The Plaintiffs’ Counsel agreed with the Prosecutor’s Office on all charges that have been brought forth and did not want to repeat anything to this effect. She noted that the discrepancies the Defense had cited could be attributed to the passage of time between the witness testimonies and the crimes as well as the numerous psychological consequences P2 had sustained through the Accused. Instead, the underlying facts of the case have been consistent throughout the witness testimonies.
She further highlighted that she did not intend to reiterate the inhumane treatment of P2 in detail, but emphasized the timeline of events as well as the deaths of the family members of P2 either through ISIS or suicide. The Counsel further noted that the Accused had not acknowledged their treatment of the girls as wrong, as evidenced by their own statements.
After being freed, P2’s life remained profoundly influenced by the treatment of the Accused. The Counsel recalled that P2’s only wish was a clear head and not to be ashamed anymore.
***
[16-minutes-break]
***
In light of these detrimental circumstances, the Plaintiffs’ Counsel agreed with the assessment of the Prosecutor, pointing out that the US, the UN, and the German Parliament had acknowledged that the treatment of the Yazidi community constituted a genocide. The Plaintiffs’ Counsel further pointed out the material requirements of Sect. 6 (1) (5) German Code of Crimes against International Law (CCAIL) [the crimes of genocide through forcible transfers of a child of the group to another group] and argued that these circumstances have been proven in Court.
She also explained that both P1 and P2 were persecuted based on their age under Sect. 7 (1) (10) CCAIL as a crime against humanity. She noted to the Court that children are more severely impacted and have fewer ways to defend themselves, thereby they are particularly vulnerable. Young children were also treated differently than adult members of the Yazidi culture, as seen for example by the higher prize that could be demanded for them by their slave owners. Since the Yazidi culture is preserved orally through the telling of stories to their children, removing them from the group results in the extinction of the group as the children would not be able to learn the stories to pass them on. P1, for instance, could speak very little or none of her mother tongue at the time of the crimes and presumably until today. The Plaintiffs' Counsel thus submitted a legal notice to the Court to recognize that the Plaintiffs were also persecuted based on their young age, meeting the requirements for "age" an impermissible ground for persecution under Sect. 7 (1) (10) CCAIL.
In her conclusion, the Plaintiffs' Counsel reminded the Court that it had the unique opportunity to call this atrocity what it was: a genocide. Many of the people that committed these atrocities never expected to be prosecuted for their crimes, she added, much less in a country like Germany. She further highlighted that P2’s wish was that this trial will have an impact so that such a thing will never happen to anyone again. P2 said that while that may sound naive, it was her sincere wish. The Counsel also explained that P2 does not wish for a specific penalty since no punishment could do her justice. Yet, for the victims of genocide, she sought the recognition of it as such.
The proceedings were adjourned at 11:15 PM.
The next trial day will be on May 20, 2026, at 9:30 AM.
Day 59 – May 20, 2026
On this trial day, the Defense of Twana H.S. read their closing statements. The Defense of Twana H.S. acknowledged that it had been proven in the trial that the Accused had enslaved both [redacted name], P1 and [redacted name], P2, brought them into his household, forced them to provide childcare for his daughter, limited their ability to interact with others, and prohibited them from leaving the house. The Accused has thereby reduced them to the legal status of property. However, the Defense does not however believe that a sexual assault or rape have been proven in the trial.
The Defense first claimed that the witnesses have given their testimonies in significant detail when compared to their testimonies with UNITAD. All Yazidi witnesses as well as P2 had given in-court testimonies with details they had not recounted in their statements with UNITAD. The Defense also cited conflicting testimony, in which some witnesses claimed to have witnessed events they had not mentioned to UNITAD.
Subsequently, the Defense argued that while the witnesses claimed they did not have contact to the other witnesses relevant to the proceedings, the Defense found several contradicting statements where the witnesses admitted that they indeed had contact with other witnesses. The Defense further argued that it was unlikely that P2 would tell her brother about the rape by Twana H.S. but not the other incidents of sexual assault she had to endure.
The Defense then addressed the identification of the Accused. According to the Defense, multiple witnesses identified the two Accused in the courtroom as the people who had held and assaulted P1 and P2, yet several witnesses were unable to identify them during the interview with UNITAD. Other witnesses, who had never seen the Accused before, identified them as the people that had held P1 and P2 as well, which would be impossible, as they had not been able to see the Accused hold the victims, the Defense added.
The Defense then claimed that three cases of rape could not be based on the P2’s or other witnesses' testimonies. P2’s testimony in court significantly differed from her statement with UNITAD, especially in regard to the timeline. The Federal Prosecutor’s Office submitted three separate counts of rape in the indictment, while carrying over the word rape from UNITAD. First, the Defense wanted to draw attention to the fact that P2 did not distinguish between sexual assault and rape. Even though Twana H.S. had only assaulted her once by penetration, P2 described all three incidents of assault as rape. From P2’s witness testimony, it did not become clear when the assaults have allegedly happened. P2 testified to different orders of the events. At first, P2 claimed that the assault in the middle of the night happened after the rape, later she claimed it happened before. This also contradicted P2’s statements with UNITAD, according to the Defense. When asked about these contradictions, the Defense recalled, P2denied and testified that she had indeed mentioned this in the statement with UNITAD, it just might not have been translated correctly. The Defense argued that this was objectively false because the part of the transcript that P2 referred to was later retranslated and did not yield any new information. The Defense could not find another explanation for these inconsistencies in the testimony. Pre-empting a possible objection the Defense argued that inconsistencies may occur when several crimes have been committed, but this does not apply to core events, as experienced by the victims in the present case where the three counts of sexual assault constitute the core events. Another inconsistency was the presence of other women like Asia R.A. in the household while these crimes happened, the Defense submitted.
Moreover, the Defense highlighted that the Accused had changed P2’s name to [redacted name], but [redacted name], P1, had not been given a new name according to P2. Every other witness contradicted this statement as they had been told P1’s name was [redacted name]. P2 also named the daughter of the Accused as [redacted name], F1, while her real name was [redacted name]. The Defense hypothesized that the real rapist of P2 could be the father of a child also named [redacted name], like the Accused’s daughter.
The Defense concluded that Twana H.S. could not be convicted for sexual assault of either P1 or P2, reiterating that every witness in the present case provided a suspicious amount of detail in court compared to the interview with UNITAD. While some were overall unable to testify about sexual assault allegedly committed by Twana H.S. when speaking to UNITAD, they testified without a doubt during the hearings before this Court, the Defense criticized. These witnesses, the Defense continued, did not give comprehensible reasons for why they suddenly knew far more details than before. The Defense repeated that P2 had not been able to reasonably testify to being raped herself, much less could she testify to a sexual assault of P1 by Twana H.S.
In addition, the Defense noted that in the phone call between P1 and her sister [redacted name], F35, P1 could not give the name of either of the Accused, calling the Accused Abu [redacted name], although that alias had not been mentioned earlier. P1 did not say that Twana H.S. had raped her when she was asked to speak of the things that the Accused had done to her. P1 testified to having been hit, having to run through the house naked, but not to sexual assault, the Defense recalled.
The Defense then criticized that the victims of the genocide are not given a perspective after being freed from ISIS. It is understandable that the witnesses and victims take advantage of the platform this trial provides them and that finally someone is trying to achieve justice for what has happened to them. For the Defense however, the witnesses had not proven that, although ISIS most definitely committed these crimes, the Accused Twana H.S. himself sexually assaulted and raped P1 and P2. For the Defense, the claim that the witnesses had not spoken about the case with their family members was unconvincing as they had traveled to Germany together.
***
[15-minutes-break]
***
After the break, the Defense agreed that the objective facts of the case had been proven. However, the subjective element had yet to be proven. To convict someone of genocide in accordance with Sect. 6 (1) CCAIL, the person must have intent to destroy a protected group in part of as a whole. The Accused did undoubtedly not take part in the genocide at Sinjar. Twana H.S. had then been indoctrinated with the ideology of ISIS after joining. It would therefore go too far to interpret his actions as a desire to destroy the Yazidi community. It was not determined that Twana H.S. had undertaken any acts of destruction like killing a Yazidi person or having been part of a coordinated attack on the Yazidi community. Twana H.S. was also not the person who enslaved P1 and P2. At the time he brought them into household, they had already been enslaved. A subjective will to destroy the Yazidi could not be derived from him enslaving them, the Defense argued. Before Twana H.S. and Asia R.A. fled to Germany, Twana H.S. wrote a letter to release P1 from the enslavement. Twana H.S.’s actions were reproachable but not undertaken with an intent to destroy the whole of the Yazidi community. In the eyes of the Defense, although Twana H.S. knew of ISIS wanting to destroy the Yazidi community, it was not proven that he acted with the intent to destroy instead of following his own self-interest to conform to the norms of ISIS. The Defense argued that a justification brought forward by the Accused to his victims was certainly based on ISIS’ propaganda. One would not discuss an intention to destroy a community with the victims. Twana H.S. therefore lacked not only the required intent to destroy the Yazidi community as such, but also [a second possible legal alternative], of intentionally being an integral part of an organized structure that follows the aim of destroying the Yazidi community.
The Defense admitted that the Accused had fulfilled all the elements needed for crimes against humanity under Sect. 7 (1) (3, 5, 9, 10) CCAIL [no. (3) (trafficking, enslavement and ownership over a person), no. (5) (torture), no. (9) (severe deprivation of a person’s physical liberty) and no. (10) (persecution of an identifiable group or collectivity by removing or substantially restricting their fundamental human rights)]. The Defense argued that since the sexual assault did not take place, the crimes under no. (6) [sexual assault, sexual coercion, rape, enforced prostitution, sexual slavery or enforced sterilization] and no. (8) [severe physical or mental harm] were not fulfilled. [Redacted name], E4, had argued that a link between P2’s PTSD could not exist without the sexual assault and therefore harm done to P2 required for the crime to be met, was not proven. The Defense also argued that the victims had not been discriminated against because of their gender [under no. 10 (persecution)]. While girls were treated differently, the treatment extend to the whole group of the Yazidi. The Defense further did not believe that the elements of Sect. 8 (1) CCAIL [war crimes against persons] have been met.
The Defense then argued that Twana H.S. committed a less serious case of the crimes. Twana H.S. had not participated in the initial attack on the Yazidi community. As this was fundamental for the primary responsibility of the genocide, this should be weighed considerably, in the opinion of the Defense. Twana H.S. had only maintained an already present injustice and not created a new one by buying and enslaving the victims. Twana H.S. was not a planner, organizer, or commander - he was a follower in a system he had not created. This should be weighed considerably as well.
Twana H.S. had also acted in a socially and religiously legitimate manner while committing these crimes. As he could not withdraw into a place with the rule of law, what should be weighed considerably in favor of Twana H.S. Another significant aspect was that Twana H.S. had written a release form for P1, which proved that he did not have the necessary intent to destroy the Yazidi, this should be weighed heavily in his favor as well. While imprisoned, Twana H.S. has shown good behavior, adhering to all rules and helping the authorities convict other former ISIS members. Before going to ISIS and after returning to Germany, Twana H.S. has not committed any crimes, which means that he does not have a criminal personality, but that his behavior was enabled by the totalitarian structure and mindset of ISIS. Twana H.S. had also suffered an assault while he was a child.
Another considerable factor was that Twana H.S. has been in pre-trial detention for more than 25 months. Twana H.S.’s imprisonment has been different to most because he was not allowed to work, or to take part in occupational therapy or any community events while in detention. This should be considered in favor of Twana H.S. as well. [While the Defense Counsel described Twana H.S.’s circumstances in prison, the Accused started crying.] The Defense then acknowledged that there are several aggravating circumstances like the age of the victim, the number of victims, the length of the enslavement as well as the status of the victims as part of a protected group, those instances cannot be referred to again, as they had already been taken into account under the general elements of the crimes. The Defense concluded that the case should be decided as a less serious case.
***
[60-minutes-break]
***
The Defense finally submitted that an imprisonment of 9 years and 6 months was reasonable considering all circumstances. Due to his pre-trial detention, 4 years and 3 months have already been served.
The Defense then argued against establishing the particular severity of the guilt. For this to be the case, Twana H.S. would have to have committed the crimes in a particularly severe way compared to an average case of genocide. Twana H.S. did not have the power to make executive decisions about the genocide, nor did he kill someone in a particularly gruesome manner. The Defense referred to their earlier arguments for a less serious case of genocide. Regarding Sect. 6 (1) (2) CCAIL [serious bodily or mental harm to a member of the group], the Court commonly established Sect. 226 German Criminal Code (GCC) [grievous bodily harm], which the Defense believes has not been met. Moreover, Twana H.S. had a favorable outlook of integrating into society after being released from prison.
The Defense then addressed a potential preventive detention in accordance with Sect. 66 GCC of Twana H.S. after his prison sentence has been served. At the time of the crime, Twana H.S. was not previously convicted of a crime with a sentence of more than 3 years. It has also not been proven that there was a risk of reoffending, as Twana H.S. did not commit any crimes before his time with ISIS. Considering the offense of illegally entering Germany was not permissible nor did he not commit any crime after returning to Germany. As the crimes he has committed and was convicted for in 2019 are closely related in terms of time and place, those are not to be considered as well, according to the Defense. Twana H.S. was a showcase model prisoner and adhered to all restrictions upon his release from prison. Minor violations like the ones addressed in court should not be considered either. As Twana H.S. was not allowed to communicate with his family or have other contact, these violations were not because he is prone to committing crimes, but because of the circumstances of this situation.
The Defense highlighted that no behavioral pattern in relation to committing crimes existed. The German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) requires a settled pattern of behavior related to past crimes. Since Twana H.S. has no longer any contact with ISIS, this pattern does not exist. While [redacted name], E5, the psychiatric expert witness, said that Twana H.S. has a narcissistic personality with dissocial aspects, she did not diagnose him with a tendency for sexual crimes or a risk of a relapse. Therefore, the Defense concluded, preventative detention is not appropriate in this case. Twana H.S. intended to adhere to the social rules as mentioned by expert witness E5. [According to German law, a Court can directly order or reserve the right to order preventive detention later.] The Defense then highlighted that reserving preventative detention to be ordered later was not applicable for the same reasons.
Lastly, the Defense noted that the convictions in the present case are subject to a cumulative penalty, Twana H.S.’s conviction for the participation in a foreign terrorist organization in 2019 and the time he has already served in prison for this should be considered.
The proceedings were adjourned at 1:42 PM.
The next trial day will be on June 22, 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