I'd like to point out that while confused in areas, I enjoyed the tone you set for the story and the atmosphere of the court room. You set out the proceedings at dry, wordy, and official. The seriousness of the charges were all presented out ad nauseam like any court room, where the drama comes out in a unique way where it's case versus case. It's like watching a game of chess, if you just watch the last bits of it, you'll be confused as hell, but if you follow through since the beginning it's engaging and addictive, offering up the reader to draw their own conclusions.
That being said, the issues I had came from some ignorance of Eluvataran culture. You did a good job with showing that the justice is respected with the title "father". I got that right away. However, in particular, this line.
Of course not. The cachar wouldn't own up, but he wouldn't risk being oath-forsworn either. Whatever he did to her, breaking a formal oath would of course be much worse, after all...
I was in a mode that was trying to make sense of your world that you're painting. At first I didn't know I could hover over the word and look up what it was, but from the context, I figured "cachar" was a title or a position. Like Lord or CEO or some sort of noble, and that this oath-forsworn was like an oath "to tell the truth nothing but the truth so help me god" sort of thing. Then, that breaking this oath would be worse. Why? The narrator already told me what he's thinking 'Whatever he did to her', why can't he just tell me what breaking the oath is. Well people in IRC informed me about what I was wrong about, that this was a word that meant "shitbag" and that this oath thing is a penalty of death deal. Anyways, that brought up a bigger issue.
The narrator is telling us that he's a shit-bag who is guilty, and that he's thinking "whatever I did to her, I can't break an oath." The narrator shouldn't be telling us he's a shitbag, unless this is first person. The narrator should also back away and describe what he's doing, and if he's pretending to be stoic, and you want to be a revealing third person narrator, then you can say "but underneath he was shaken to the bones, what if he broke the oath" Also with a court room, everything has to be brought out for the case, so that makes exposition very easy to get out there. A judge basically is your exposition master. He can plainly spell out for the man, "so under oath do you understand the consequence of execution should you break the oath blah blah blah." There it is spelled out for us, and we can clearly understand by his fear and this exposition, that this man is taking a risk. Is he guilty? Yes or no? We don't know, but his life is on the line! Oh shit! Also this line numbs the drama of the court room. We now know that for sure he's 100% guilty, so now the proceeding narrative after this is how we nailed that shit bag. I think it's best if you kept the narrator objective, and let the reader develop an opinion on it.
The other issue I had with this, is the really long names, and then some of the names that are too similar to Tolkien characters. Suddenly my head associates one of the characters as
That shitty king who wouldn't put the ring in the lava, instead of
the doctor who is a witness in this criminal case that I'm reading. As for the really long names, over and over. I'm not reading the names, I'm skipping over them. All I need is a first name or a first and a last name, then repeat the first name more often or just the last name, but repeating out the full name makes the character forgettable. Russian literature already has a problem in translation for doing this. Often they add the patronymic after names, and while this is normal in Russian culture, to refer to someone with their first and patronymic, you have four full names streaming across the prose while some people already have trouble with two names. The names just have to cut shorter, because I'm not really following who is doing what towards the end, it's just this one really long name is interacting with douchebag LotR king really long name while really long name is being nervous. The shorter name will help us identify more with the characters instead of reaching for a bottle of ibuprofen.
Overall, great story, and while there's a discussion about triggers or whatever, I'm old fashioned in believing that people are more resilient than to be traumatized by prose, but don't take my opinion as fact because I've never had a traumatic experience and don't know what it can do to a person. As for its relation to the story, keep the tension up, keep the anxiety of the character, show not tell, etc. I caution you to be extra careful when writing more on this though, because it is such an easy topic to completely fuck and look like an asshole. So good luck C: