Inside the Twana H.S. and Asia R.A. Trial #7: Retraumatization and Conflict in Court
TRIAL OF TWANA H.S. AND ASIA R.A.
Higher Regional Court – Munich, Germany
Trial Monitoring Summary #7
Hearing Date: July 29, 30 & 31, 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 7th trial monitoring report details days 13, 14 and 15 of the trial of Twana H.S. and Asia R.A. in Munich, Germany. On the first trial day of the week, the witness F34 gave her testimony. She explained how she met the two Accused and P1 and how she had witnessed the Accused Asia R.A. hit P1. She also recalled that Twana H.S. brought P1 to her house before selling her on. F34 recalled that P1 had told her that the Accused shackled her hands and feet, undressed her and “did that to her.” Even upon repeated questioning by the Judges, F34 did not go into more detail.
The second trial day was adjourned after the Presiding Judge explained that F34, could not testify on this day, due to mental health issues.
The third trial day this week was dedicated to the Defense Counsels’ questioning of F34. The witness clarified that P1 had told her that Twana H.S. “had inserted something into her.” Following discussions between the Defense and the Judges, the Court read out multiple sections of the police transcript detailing F34’s statements related to the described sexual actions. The Defense further complained that the Judges’ standard towards the Defense’s questions does not always comply with the one imposed on themselves.
Day 13 – July 29, 2025
At the start of the trial day, the Defense of both Accused announced to make a statement pursuant to Sect. 257 of the German Code of Criminal Procedure (GCCP) [note: Sect. 257 GCCP states that the Prosecutor and the Defense Counsel must be given the opportunity to make a statement after the examination of the Accused or each individual taking of evidence. These interim statements must not preempt the closing arguments given at the end of the trial.] Following the testimony of witness [redacted name] F29 [for the details of her testimony, see Trial Report #06].
Defense Counsel Ewald started by noting that no identification of the Twana H.S. had taken place. He argued that, as follows from prior presentation of evidence, the fact that the witness failed to identify Twana H.S. from a picture in her police questioning indicated that the incriminating testimony was not based on original memory, but rather on suggestions. He added that this was not undermined by the fact that the witness recognized Twana H.S. in the courtroom. Given the seating arrangement in Court, he claimed, it does not constitute an actual identification. Defense Counsel Ewald added that there are significant contradictions within F29’s in court testimony as well as compared to previous statements, listing several examples. Ewald first noted that F29 had mentioned a house in Court where [redacted name] and F29 were already living when [redacted name] F42, moved in, yet told police that the Accused were already living there. Similarly, Ewald noted that F29 also differed in her explanation of how their joint residence ended. In Court, she testified that the two Accused had a child, presumably a girl. Ewald argued that, even if one took the Kurdish language into consideration, in 2021, F29 clearly stated that she did not know if the Accused had one or multiple children, claiming that she could not remember [note: the Kurdish interpreter explained to the Court that a distinction between “one child” and “multiple children” is barely possible in Kurish, see Trial Report #06 for the details]. Defense Counsel Ewald argued that this undermined her testimony as a whole and it remained unclear why she later gave this information. Ewald continued that especially in criminal proceedings, the aforementioned must be weighed against the credibility of the witness’s testimony, in accordance with the principle of in dubio pro reo [note: in dubio pro reo is a fundamental law principle meaning that any doubt must be resolved in favor of the accused.].
Defense Counsel Ewald highlighted the critical notice by the witness that she had received the remains of her brother at the beginning of the year and is therefore in mourning, adding that she cannot remember a lot. He argued that this, in conjunction with the fact that at the beginning of the questioning she remembered very little, can hardly be reconciled with the circumstance that after the break she recalled significantly more. After this break, the Defense Counsel noted, the witness reported accounts incriminating Twana H.S. In particular, she explained that P1 had told her about the rape and was able to specify the location of this conversation, although she later relativized this. According to Defense Counsel Ewald, this constituted a flagrant contradiction to her police statement, from which one might assume that the Yazidi girls did not discuss their rapes in detail with each other. At that time, the witness stated that it had been told to her, but she no longer recalled by whom. In Defense Counsel Ewald’s assessment, this raises serious doubts as to whether the testimony was based on her own perception. He continued by noting that F29 had a significant interest in the prosecution of this case. Ewald believed that this was grounded in the fact that F29 did not want to say the Accused’s given names explicitly, although they did not attack her personally, calling them “die IS-ler” [meaning: those from ISIS] instead. He reiterated that given the identification issue, the significant contradictions, the memory gaps, and the personal interest in prosecution, the testimony should be assessed cautiously, and any doubts should be resolved in favor of the Accused.
When asked, the Prosecution noted that they were not going to comment on this statement today.
Subsequently, Defense Counsel Ameri continued with a statement on behalf of Asia R.A. Ameri began by noting that he does not contest that the witness suffered during her captivity but that this understandably triggers a personal interest in prosecution, although the Accused did not harm her personally. He called F29’s account after the break to mind, when she said that the Accused were not worth being called by their names, wishing for a conviction. He added that the witness could not identify the Accused in a picture during the police interview, although it took place closer in time to the events and in a less stressful environment. He picked up Defense Counsel Ewald’s argument regarding the identification in Court and added that the personal interest in prosecution must be considered here. Ameri also reiterated Ewald’s reasoning pertaining to the divergence from her police statement, especially concerning the rape. He noted that it remained unclear why these aspects were not communicated to the police. He argued that it should also be considered that F29 only admitted to exchanging mobile phone numbers with a man in the public gallery after repeated questioning. Ameri concluded that a significant divergence could be observed. The testimony began very sparse, then became highly detailed, sometimes even revealing new aspects. He explained that, in view of these accounts, doubts exist pertaining to the reliability of the testimony, and it cannot be excluded that the witness may have mixed information according to her own interests. Ameri concluded that F29’s entire testimony must be evaluated with caution.
Following the Defense’s statements, the witness F34 appeared before the Court, accompanied by her legal representative [redacted name] F40, and her personal interpreter, [redacted name] F41. The Presiding Judge thanked her for appearing and asked her if she could understand the court interpreter [redacted name] C3, which F34 confirmed. The Presiding Judge clarified the identities of the parties present in court and reminded the witness of her rights and duty to provide truthful testimony. The Presiding Judge continued by explaining that they had sufficient time and that she could request a break if needed. He also asked if she had previously been questioned by the German police, which she confirmed, whereupon the Judge explained that in Germany, witnesses have to recount to the Court what they told the police.
When asked if she recognized the two Accused, F34 confirmed and said their names were [redacted information] Asia and Abu Abdullah [an alias for the Accused Twana H.S]. F34 explained that she knew them from Raqqa around 2016 and 2017. When asked by the Presiding Judge to recount from what context she knew them, she recalled that she had been in Raqqa with a man [redacted name, F43] from ISIS who was also Kurdish and Twana H.S.’s friend. When the two Accused moved back to Raqqa, F34 remembered how she and the man [redacted name, F43] were invited to visit them for dinner, celebrating their daughter’s birth. F34 recounted that during the visit, she saw [redacted name] P1 doing housework and looking after the Accused’s daughter. She remembered that P1 was very small and young, and had to [redacted information]. According to the witness, the two men were sitting outside, and the Accused Asia R.A. was in another room dressing the baby.
F34 further explained that she took the dishes into the kitchen to speak to P1, seeing her crying and appearing very troubled. When she asked P1 why she was crying, P1 answered that she missed her parents and that they [the two Accused] inflict great suffering on her. F34 recounted that she left the kitchen because she did not want the Accused to see the two of them speaking and beat P1 for that.
Upon questioning, F34 remembered that after some time, she and the ISIS guy she was with [redacted name, F43] moved within Raqqa because of the bombings. She recalled that a different Kurdish man from Halabja was also present, adding that she was left alone in the house where the walls of one room were made of mud and soil. After some time, they brought P1 to her, who seemed very agitated. According to F34, she asked P1 if she was hungry, which P1 confirmed. F34 then told her that she was going to wash her before cooking something for her. The witness then testified that she had also been young and experienced suffering herself, but that P1 was even younger, and she pitied her a lot. She continued by saying that ISIS had killed two of her brothers and that she was scared that ISIS would kill P1 too. F34 explained to the Court that she wanted P1 to know that she was also a Yazidi, so that P1 would be less scared.
The witness continued by recounting that she warmed up water to bathe P1 and wash her clothes when she noticed that P1 was very sad. F34 recalled that P1’s body showed red marks and bruising. She noticed that something had happened that was causing P1 great fear. F34 added that she had a sense of what might have occurred. F34 did not intend to ask P1 because she was so young, but since F34 had a premonition that they had ruined P1, she could no longer hold back and asked. F34 remembered that she laid her arm around P1’s shoulder and asked why she was crying, whereupon P1 laid her arm around F34’s neck and cried. F34 then recounted that P1 felt ashamed and said that she would tell her, but that F34 should not tell anyone what F34 promised. According to the witness, P1 then said that Abu Abdullah had ruined her. When F34 asked why he had brought P1 here, she said to sell her. F34 explained that she was unable to help P1 as she was a hostage herself. The witness recalled that she and P1 then prayed to God together to redeem and grant them justice.
Upon further questioning, the witness explained that she washed and dressed P1 and broke bread into small pieces for her to eat. She mentioned that they did not have any nutritious food that could strengthen P1. She detailed that P1 stayed with her and that she had begged [redacted name] F43 that she could sleep next to P1, which he allowed. She recounted that [redacted name] F33 and F29 visited the following day, all feeling pity for P1 while unable to help. That day, F34 recounted, F29, [redacted name] F33 and her cooked, everybody ate together until F33 and F29 left in the evening. This time [redacted name] F43 did not allow her to sleep next to P1, adding that they were just slaves. The witness remarked that the Yazidi did not have any rights amongst ISIS and that ISIS members would not talk to them; “we were no different from animals.” The next morning while F34 and P1 were still asleep, there was a knock on the door. A car arrived from which three or four long-haired armed ISIS members exited, saying they were there to take P1. F34 explained that Twana H.S. and the ISIS man with whom F34 stayed [redacted name, F43] had arranged the pick-up of P1. According to the witness, P1 cried and was scared, telling F34 that she wanted to stay with her, asking if she would ever see her again. F34, in an attempt to alleviate P1’s fear, replied that they will both return to their parents and there will be a court to ensure justice. Before a break was issued, the witness recalled that that was the last time she saw P1 and presumed that Twana H.S. had sold her.
***
21-minute-break
***
Following the break, the Presiding Judge explained to F34 that she referred to the man as the “these ISIS guys,” asking for names and more specific details. Upon precise questioning, F34 testified that the female Accused was also called Umm Abdullah. F34 also recalled that the ISIS man she was with was called [redacted name] and renamed [redacted name] F43 by ISIS. When asked when she had arrived in Raqqa, F34 remembered that they were taken on August 15, 2014, and then brought to a big school in Kocho [Iraq]. Upon questioning by the Judge, F34 recalled that she did not spend much time in Raqqa, after having stayed in Mosul for a while, approximately six to seven months, having arrived in winter. Asked about the houses and their locations, the witness recalled that she stayed with “them” alone, with no shops around, surrounded by trees. She added that the Accused’s house was visible from her apartment, so 20 or 30 meters away.
Upon repeated questioning whether F34 had seen P1 being mistreated, the witness detailed that she had secretly observed the Accused Asia R.A. hitting P1, sometimes with her hand, sometimes with a metal drinking cup. F34 also reported that she had seen bruises on P1’s body, remembering that P1 turned red and tears filling her eyes upon being beaten. When asked, F34 denied seeing open wounds on P1’s body. Upon further questioning, the witness testified not having seen how P1 was treated by Twana H.S. due to the gender separation, but presumed that he treated her the same as Asia R.A. because he had brought P1 into the house. Questioned by the Judge, F34 clarified that since P1 was Yazidi, she assumed that Twana H.S. bought her from a different ISIS man.
The Presiding Judge recalled F34’s account that P1 did not do the housework willingly and asked who instructed P1 to do it. The witness responded that it was the female Accused who had instructed P1 and that P1 knew she would be beaten if she did not do it. When asked if P1 was otherwise treated well, F34 denied, adding that she did not see anyone from ISIS having pity, otherwise they would not have done this to the Yazidi, as they had killed and captured thousands of Yazidi. F34 further denied that P1 received sufficient food. The Presiding Judge then confronted F34 with a previous statement to the police, in which she detailed that the two Accused treated P1 well when F34 was present. The witness reiterated that the Accused did not beat P1 in front of her but that she had seen the bruising. Upon inquiry whether P1 could openly practice her [Yazidi] religion, F34 recalled that P1 was forced to pray [Islam], wearing clothes provided by the Accused Asia R.A. F34 further testified that P1 spoke Arabic. Upon back and forth of questions regarding the weapons of the Accused, F34 explained that both Accused wore small pistols: Asia R.A. wore hers under her black dress, Twana H.S. carried his in a black robe. F34 added that they might have been wearing other weapons, but she only saw small ones. F34 was also asked whether P1 was allowed to leave her house without the Accused, what the witness denied, adding that P1 was also not allowed in a room alone with her. The second house in Raqqa, F34 recalled upon a question by the Judge, was farther from the Accused’s house and that one had to take a car.
Judge Strafner continued by asking who was present during the dinner. F34 repeated her prior account, adding that Asia R.A. repeatedly asked P1 to fetch things. She was then confronted with her police statement, in which F34 noted that P1 ate the same food as the two Accused, but the Accused had enough meat, and did not provide enough for P1. The Judge added that it is important for the Court to know if F34 had seen these things herself or heard these things, confronting her with another part of her police statement where F34 had detailed that P1 was only allowed to shower when the two Accused said so - about every two or three weeks. Judge Strafner inquired how she knew this information. F34 remembered that P1 did not smell good and that one could tell from her hair and clothing. She recounted that she had the same experience, appearing upset. The Presiding Judge asked if it was okay to continue or if she needed a break; the witness confirmed that it was fine.
Referred back to the weapons by the Judge, F34 recalled they were black and carried somewhere at the body, along with ammunition. The Judge confronted the witness with her previous police statement, in which the witness recalled that Asia R.A. had told her that the weapon was a present from Twana H.S. for the birth of their daughter and that Asia R.A. does not show the weapon to Asia R.A.’s friends. The witness could not remember any more details.
***
60-minute-break
***
Following the lunch break, the witness described the second house in Raqqa as a [redacted information] with [redacted information] and [redacted information]. The kitchen was also [redacted information] located next to the [redacted information]. The [redacted information] room, also with a [redacted information], opened into a [redacted information] with two [redacted information]. She confirmed that the house was empty when she arrived and that she spent multiple months there, but not a full year. The Presiding Judge asked about the first visit they had. F34 recalled that the first people who came were [redacted name] F33, [redacted name] F29, and a friend of [redacted name] F43, called [redacted name] F42 in ISIS, originally from Halabja. Two or three days later, a different friend of [redacted name] F43 who was also Kurdish, and his Arabic wife visited. F34 explained that the people came and went on the same day, with the women sitting in the room and the men in the courtyard. When asked, she could not remember if F33 and F29 stayed the night. At the Presiding Judge’s inquiry, F34 recounted the situation in which F33 and F29 met P1 and explained that the four of them were sitting in the courtyard after [redacted name] F43 and [redacted name] F42, had left and locked the doors. During repeated back-and-forth questions, the witness clarified that they noticed P1 was unwell, but when they were sitting together, few if any questions were asked because they knew it burdened P1. The witness also explained that P1 did not speak about the situation on her own because she was ashamed, but that the witness told F33 and F29 about what had happened in a moment when P1 was not present.
The Presiding Judge asked the witness if she could remember which words and language P1 had used when describing that she had been ruined. F34 recalled that P1 spoke Arabic and had said the word “Ephistat,” which was interpreted by the Court’s interpreter for Kurmanji, [redacted name] C3, as “rape.” [Note: the term remains contested. The correct term for "rape" in Arabic is "Ightisab اغتصاب".] When asked if she could elaborate on the circumstances when P1 was ruined, F34 replied that she found it difficult to recount the events. When the Presiding Judge asked if the witness needed a break, her legal representative, [redacted name] F40, replied that F34 would like to continue without a break. The witness then recounted that P1 had told her that Twana H.S. had taken her clothes off, bound her hands and feet and “subjected her to this treatment.” She explained further that P1 did not know what exactly had happened to her, that she did not know what rape is. The Presiding Judge asked if F34 remembered any other details. The witness remembered that P1 was crying so much that she could barely speak, saying her stomach hurt. Upon questioning, F34 explained that P1 told her, it had happened two or three hours before she was brought to F34.
When asked about other Yazidi girls who visited, F34 mentioned that another young girl who was also with the two Accused came for a day, but she could not remember any details or circumstances surrounding this. Judge Strafner asked F34 to elaborate on an earlier time, right after she was captured. During multiple follow-up questions, the witness disclosed in detail that she was in Raqqa for a month with multiple other Yazidi girls and was then bought by a Saudi man who brought her to [redacted location]. She remembered having met two girls there: [redacted name] F49, and another Yazidi girl whose name she could not recall. When asked, she explained that she saw [redacted name] F49 often after being bought by [redacted name] F43. She continued recounting that she had gone to Mosul with F43 to a village called [redacted location]. She explained that F43 had asked her if she wanted to visit other Yazidi girls, whereupon they went to visit F49 and later [redacted name] F33 and [redacted name] F29 visited. She recalled that F49 lived next to [redacted name] F31 was with an ISIS man called [redacted name] F50 whom she had a child with. On the next day, F34 and F43 visited [redacted name] F51 who was with an ISIS man called [redacted name] F52 living far from F49. She remembered that F51 and F31 had been sold on to other people. F34 added that she had lived in [redacted location] for nine months to a year. She also recounted an instance where F43 had left her alone to go pray and had told her to pray too, which she did not do since it was not her religion. She recalled that he had placed a weapon on her “dishar” (prayer clothes) and, upon returning, told her he knew she had not prayed since the weapon had not been moved. He then struck her on the head with it, saying, “So you won’t forget your prayer again.”
Judge Wosylus referred back to what F34 had said regarding the circumstances when P1 was ruined, and asked her to elaborate. The witness reiterated her earlier account, that Twana H.S. took P1’s clothes off, bound her and “inflicted that upon her.” Judge Wosylus continued by acknowledging how difficult this topic was, but asked what exactly P1 had told F34, precisely because P1 did not know exactly what a rape was. F34 reiterated her previous account once more, adding that Twana H.S. had brought P1 to her once he was finished and that he had waited for P1 to be older so that he could do “that” to her, being aware she could die if he did this to her while she was still little. Judge Wosylus inquired about the food P1 and F34 ate. The witness remembered that she cooked for P1, having bread and rice, sometimes only having one meal a day. F34 recalled telling P1 that she was not hungry when the food was not enough for both of them, because P1 was hungry. When asked whether P1 was forced to pray, F34 replied that when the ISIS guys were present, they had to pray; P1 had been taught the words to pray. She added that when the ISIS men were away, she and P1 would not pray as one cannot enforce religion by force.
Defense Counsel Ameri interrupted, noting that the Accused Asia R.A. needed a break to take headache medicine.
***
20-minute-break
***
After the break, Judge Strafner asked the witness how long she stayed in the house out of soil and how long F33 and F29’s visit was. Upon F34’s answer that F29 and F33 visited three to four times in total, the Judge confronted her with a previous police statement from Canada, saying that F33 and F29 visited her and stayed one night, the night after [redacted name] F53 and his Russian wife stayed one night and then F33 andF29 visited again and stayed four days. The Judge asked whether the four-day visit was when P1 was there, whereupon F34 explained that Twana H.S. brought P1 to her either before or after the Russian woman visited.
Judge Hamel wanted to know what had changed for her after she was sold by the Saudi man to F43. F34 responded that F43 was not allowed to sell her again since he had married her. Judge Hamel recognized that speaking about this was burdensome, but needed to understand what F34 meant when saying that Twana H.S. had “done that” with P1. The Judge asked F34 if P1 had used any specific words to describe this part. The witness repeated her previous accounts. When Judge Hamel followed up by asking what words P1 had used, F34 reiterated that P1 had said that he ruined her, that he raped her. The witness explained that he had destroyed her dream with that - all Yazidi girls had a dream. ISIS took all dreams, but one day P1 will receive justice, F34 added. F34’s wish for God was that “they [ISIS] will someday go through the same as us [Yazidi].” She further reported that ISIS killed newborn children; her brother had only been 40 days old. She added there are no words for the things they did to them, called Yazidi disbelievers. F34 concluded by saying that they are the disbelievers instead.
When asked by Judge Hamel when she was freed, F34 recalled that it was on March 15, 2019. She explained upon questioning about contact with other Yazidi that she was brought back to her family, saw F29 and F33 once, having become online friends, but had only little contact. She denied having talked to them about her testimony today. Judge Strafner asked if she had been questioned by the Rescue Office, which she confirmed, and asked what she had told them. F34 recalled that she had told them her whole story. Before concluding the hearing, Judge Hamel inquired whether names were provided to her or if she had given them herself. F34 denied that names were provided and stressed that she had told the truth.
The proceedings were adjourned at 3:18 PM.
The next trial day will be on July 30, 2025, at 9:30 AM.
Day 14 – July 30, 2025
On this trial day, Presiding Judge Stoll started by reading a note by Judge Strafner. The Judge had been called the day prior by a witness protection officer for F34. After the session, F34 fainted upon exiting a vehicle and remained unconscious for about two minutes. She was rushed to a hospital, where she did not respond when addressed for the next two and a half hours. Later, she reacted only by nodding or moving her eyes when being addressed. Physically, the doctors could not find anything wrong with her. According to the doctors, F34 had most likely suffered a dissociative state due to the psychologically stressful court hearing. F34 had been discharged from the hospital on her own wish, though she had to be supported to be able to walk. The Presiding Judge therefore decided that F34’s testimony would not be continued today, but instead the parties to the proceedings will have to make arrangements for the remaining third hearing date.
Defense Counsel Ameri, part of Asia R.A.’s Defense Team, asked what the Court would do if F34 will continue to be unable to testify on July 31. The Presiding Judge noted that they will have F34 examined by a public health officer, and if she is declared to be able to stand Trial, F34 could be coerced to appear.
The proceedings were adjourned at 10:42 PM.
The next trial day will be on July 31, 2025, at 9:30 AM.
Day 15 – July 31, 2025
The Presiding Judge began this day’s session by explaining that the witness, [redacted name] F34, recovered well yesterday and was willing to continue the testimony. He noted that he had spoken with the expert psychologist [redacted name] E4 who pointed out that under such circumstances, re-traumatization is possible. She noted that this risk increases when there are additional external factors, such as a high level of public attention and the presence of individuals connected to the events in question. The psychologist added that, in general, it would be helpful to reduce the number of people present. The Presiding Judge said he would consider this should the need arise during the proceedings [note: On July 29 and 31, between 15 and 20 spectators attended the hearing, which was exceptionally high compared to other trial sessions.].
The witness then entered the courtroom. The Presiding Judge expressed his delight that she felt better and gratitude for attending today. He then explained that, in Germany, the Defense Counsels of the Accused also have a right to ask questions to the witness, which they would do today.
Defense Counsel Ameri began with the questioning. Ameri explained to F34 that he will reiterate something she had said as he recalls it and then pose a specific question. Ameri explained that he had understood that Twana H.S. undressed P1, shackled her and then ruined her. He asked F34 if she could say what exactly Twana H.S. had done to P1 or describe the concrete actions, which P1 had told her about. F34 asked whether he wanted to know what P1 had told her in Arabic, which Ameri confirmed. Following F34’s testimony, the interpreter for Kurmanji, [redacted name] C3, noted that F34 said the word in Arabic and that she could only repeat it in Arabic. F34 interjected that she would rather tell her in Kurdish and that she could interpret it. The Presiding Judge asked C3 if she could repeat the Arabic word from memory. Defense Counsel Ameri objected to this suggestion, and C3 could no longer recall the word. The Presiding Judge asked [redacted name] C2, the Arabic interpreter, to come forward, yet F34 clearly rejected the attempt, saying “No, I do not want to speak Arabic, it is hard for me!” The Presiding Judge acknowledged her decision, saying that he will try to explain why they need this information. He noted that words in other languages might convey slightly different meanings, which is why the courts seeks to ascertain what occurred as close as possible to the true events. He offered that F34 could write instead of verbally expressing the word. F34, interpreted by C2 from Arabic, reiterated what P1 told her: Twana H.S. undressed her and himself, shackled her hands and feet, and “put something inside her body,” which was really painful.
Defense Counsel Ameri continued by recounting F34’s previous account, where she explained that P1 had said the Arabic word for rape to her, “Ephistat.” At the same time, Ameri noted, F34 had recognized that P1 did not know “that what has been done to her was rape.” Ameri asked how she could explain this. Prosecutor General Dr. Schlepp interjected that Ameri’s recount of the witness’s account was incorrect. Schlepp noted down that F34 testified that “she did not know what had been done to her.” F34’s legal counsel added that Defense Counsel Ameri had to explain the question since even she had not understood it. Ameri reformulated his question, whereupon F34 answered that P1 was young, but did know what it was, “she knew that she was ruined”. She explained further that her impression was that it was the first time that this had happened to P1.
Defense Counsel Ameri followed up with two questions, which the Presiding Judge rejected due to repetition. When Ameri started reiterating F34’s previous answer, the Presiding Judge interrupted, stressing that this was not a question. Ameri protested that being interrupted when asking questions was uncomfortable as it confused him.
Defense Counsel Ameri then confronted the witness with a police statement, where she was asked whether P1 said more about what happened other than being bound and undressed. To the police, F34 denied. Ameri then asked why she remembered more today. The question was interjected by the Presiding Judge, explaining that she might have remembered more during the police interview. Prosecutor Dr. Schlepp also intervened, adding that Ameri’s confrontation was incomplete as F34 had in fact provided more details on this matter elsewhere in the police statement. The Presiding Judge tried to rephrase Ameri’s original question, but withdrew after another objection that the confrontation was incorrect by the Prosecutor.
Following this, Ameri noted that he did not want to discuss this further in front of the witness, since it might be influencing her. The Presiding Judge announced a break to discuss the phrasing of the question.
***
15-minute-break
***
After the break, the Presiding Judge explained that he would read multiple parts of F34’s police statement aloud and ask questions subsequently. Defense Counsel Ameri agreed with the proposed procedure but raised a concern, emphasizing that his confrontation with the police statement had been correct, since F34 had never mentioned anything about “invading.” He argued that interrupting him was inappropriate, as it confused the witness. Referring to the principle of a fair trial and European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) jurisprudence, Ameri stressed that the defense must be allowed to confront a witness with doubts. He noted that even the Presiding Judge and the Prosecution had at times asked leading or repetitive questions, which also confused the witness, yet the Defense had not intervened. He therefore requested that the same standard be applied to both sides.
The witness F34 was called back into the courtroom, and the Presiding Judge began with reading out the excerpts. Following the police statement transcript, F34 had been asked whether P1 was bleeding. She denied but added that she had internal pain from the rape. When subsequently asked if P1 had explained how she was raped apart from being bound, F34 denied. At another point, the police asked F34 what P1 had answered when F34 wanted to know why she was crying. F34 told the police that P1 said that Twana H.S. had done “dirty things with her” the night before coming here. When F34 was asked what “dirty things” meant, she said “sex things.” F34 confirmed when the police asked whether P1 was raped. The witness also confirmed the question of whether it was the first time that Twana H.S. raped P1. Following this, the Presiding Judge explained that she had mentioned a new detail today, that P1 had said that Twana H.S. had entered her body, and inquired why she had not mentioned this before.
The witness noted that her police interview was concerned with her own story, and that she had not explained the story of P1 in detail. When asked why she had not said anything on day one of her testimony, she said that she had. The Presiding Judge explained that she had not used the exact wording, whereupon F34 responded that she does not always remember everything right at the start. The Presiding Judge asked whether it also had something to do with the fact that she did not want to speak in Arabic. Defense Counsel Ameri interrupted, noting that this was not an open question, but the witness already replied that she did not want to speak Arabic. Defense Counsel Kämpf remonstrated that the Presiding Judge frequently interrupted the Defense Counsels during questioning, arguing they are leading or repetitive, while the same standard is not applied to the Judges’ own questions. Ameri added that the Defense Counsels objected to this question and the Judge failed to interrupt the proceedings, which made it procedurally moot [If the Defense Counsel objects to a question, a decision must be made on the admissibility of the question. If this concerns a question from the Presiding Judge, then the Senate as a whole must decide in accordance with Sect. 242, 238 II GCCP. If the objection is ignored or not decided by the competent body, this constitutes a procedural error. This can lead to a revision in accordance with Sect. 337 GCCP, if the judgment is based on it]. The Presiding Judge pointed out that that is open to debate but requested Defense Counsel Ameri to continue with the questions.
Defense Counsel Ameri resumed the questioning by inquiring whether there was a difference in F34’s status after marrying [redacted name] F43, F34 explained that it remained unchanged, and she did not have any rights. Upon a follow-up question, she added that she did not know whether she would have been alone in a room with Asia R.A. without being married to F43. She also remembered that she had been in a room with the Accused once or twice for a couple of hours. When asked how their relationship was, the witness explained that the Accused Asia R.A. was not allowed to give her orders and that she treated her okay.
Defense Counsel Ewald continued with a question about the names for the Accused and confronted F34 with a police statement in which she named the Accused as Umm Abdullah but stated that she does not know other names. F34 explained that she recalled the name Asia R.A. after she had left the police. When asked whether she remembered what the house of the Accused looked like, she recalled that it was bigger but could not remember how many rooms it had.
Defense Counsel Ewald confronted her with her previous accounts from trial day 13, specifically that she had said that P1 was given as a gift on the occasion of the birth of the daughter of the two Accused. He continuously asked F34 if she remembered her account, whereupon Prosecutor Schlepp requested that he read out the statement directly rather than continually asking the witness if she recalled it because it doubled the duration of the entire trial. Defense Counsel Ewald remarked that he had repeatedly been accused of presenting incorrect confrontations, which is why he considered the question about recollections to be entirely legitimate. Subsequently, the Presiding Judge noted that problems may occur if the witness remembered her own accounts from trial day 13 incorrectly. When asked, F34 explained that she does not remember what she said on trial day 13 and that currently, she does no longer remember anything. Her legal counsel, F40, requested a break.
***
13-minute-break
***
After the break, Defense Counsel Ewald inquired whether F34 remembered what P1 had said when the witness asked her why she was crying in the first house. F34 could no longer recall this and also was not sure if she had asked how P1 was treated by the two Accused. According to Defense Counsel Ewald F34 said on day 13 that the two Accused had not mistreated her, but then later mentioned more. F34 reiterated that the Accused Asia R.A. told P1 repeatedly to fetch things, but that she had not witnessed P1 being hit very badly. Defense Counsel Kämpf brought up that she had testified that she had witnessed the mistreatment secretly and asked for more context. F34 answered that she did not recall all the details since it was a long time ago. When Defense Counsel Kämpf followed up two more times on the secret observing, legal counsel F40 remarked that he had asked for a third time now. F34 detailed that the Accused did not know she was being watched, because they did not treat P1 badly when she was around. Defense Counsel Ewald continued by asking about the weapons of the Accused. F34 could not remember whether Asia R.A. had the weapon on her while at home or where in the house they were stored. When asked where the ammunition was stored, the witness clarified a previous misunderstanding by explaining that they had a type of belt to store it. Defense Counsel Kämpf then confronted F34 with a previous police statement where she said that Umm Abdullah did not tell her friends about the weapons, but that the witness knew that they stored them in the bedroom. F34 explained that she has never been in the bedroom.
When asked multiple follow-up questions regarding the situation where P1 was picked up by ISIS men, F34 reiterated her previous accounts. She added that the courtyard had two doors and that they picked up P1 from the smaller door. She detailed that she watched the courtyard from the doorway in the room, as she was not allowed to go outside. Upon another question, she confirmed that she had seen the car in which the ISIS-guys arrived. Defense Counsel Ewald confronted her with another previous statement where she explained that a different Daesh man who had bought P1 came to pick her up, but she did not know how to describe him. When asked about the vehicle, she did not remember. F34 testified that she had not said that it was only one [ISIS man], whereupon Ewald insisted that she had. The Presiding Judge asked Defense Counsel Ewald what his question was, and Ewald inquired about the differences in both accounts. The Presiding Judge asked what differences the Defense Counsel referred to. The Defense Counsel explained he assumed that she spoke only about one person. He noted that she might have meant that only one of the persons had bought P1, but she never ruled out that he might have had companions when picking her up. When Defense Counsel Ewald asked whether F34 remembered talking only about one person, her counsel, F34, objected formally, reiterating the Presiding Judge’s argument. Defense Counsel Ewald continued by noting that F34 had told the police that she had not seen a car. Judge Stoll interrupted, stressing that the confrontations must be accurate. He pointed out that, according to the transcript, the police asked what vehicle it was, which could also refer to a brand.
Defense Counsel Ewald continued with a different topic. When asked if F34 remembered explaining that Twana H.S. had waited to rape P1 until she was older because he was aware that otherwise she could die, F34 clarified that this had been her personal assessment. Defense Counsel Ewald asked whether F34 had spoken with P1 about rape or asked her if she had been raped, which the witness denied. Ewald followed up with multiple questions about [redacted name] F43 with F34 clarifying that she did not know what kind of work he did nor if he worked, but that he was also not always home. Ewald was interested in more details about the incident where F43 hit her with a weapon for not praying. F34 recalled that he had hit her with the buttstock of the weapon. When asked if she could explain the motivation for the punishment, visibly upset, the witness testified that ISIS had killed people, including her siblings, just to get people to join their religion. Upon this, Defense Counsel Ewald asked if there was more to come and laughed slightly. The Presiding Judge asked F34 if she would like a break, which she confirmed.
***
15-minute-break
***
Following the break, Defense Counsel Ewald resumed the questioning by confronting the witness with her police statement, where she said F43 had slammed her head against a wall in the above-mentioned situation, which F34 could not remember having said.
When the questioning neared the end, F34’s legal counsel, F40, announced that the witness wished to say something. F34 expressed her gratitude for being allowed to attend and commended the efforts made on behalf of the Yazidis. She said that she was confident that the state would do the right thing and that she wished the two Accused get what they deserve. The Presiding Judge thanked her for attending and wished her a safe trip home. F34 added that, although she would return home safely, she would live with a broken heart for the rest of her life. She explained that her relatives, her father and brother, had been killed, and that it felt as if she, her sister, and her mother had also been killed through this loss.
The witness was dismissed, and before concluding the session, the Defense Counsels announced that they will prepare a statement according to Sect. 257 GCCP for the next session. The Prosecutors announced that they would also give a statement.
The proceedings were adjourned at 2:30 PM.
The next trial day will be on August 5, 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