with regard to the obligations established in articles 1.1 and 2 of the Convention, and Article XVIII (right to
fair trial) of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duty of Man (hereinafter the “American Declaration”).
The Commission also concluded that the Venezuelan State is responsible for the violation of Article 7 of the
Convention of Belém do Pará and articles 1, 6, and 8 of the ICPPT. Based on these conclusions, the
Commission made the corresponding recommendations.
II.

PROCEEDING BEFORE THE COMMISSION FOLLOWING THE REPORT ON ADMISSIBILITY

5.
The initial petition was received by the Commission on November 12, 2007. The processing
of the petition up until the decision on admissibility is detailed in Report No. 154/10 dated November 1,
20103 In that report, the IACHR declared the petition admissible with respect to the possible violation of i)
the rights enshrined in articles 5.1, 5.2, 8.1, 11.1, 24, and 25 of the American Convention, in conjunction with
its articles 1.1 and 2; and ii) Article 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará. The parties were notified of the
report on admissibility on November 17 and December 1, 2010, pursuant to Article 37.1 of the Rules of
Procedure in force at the time. Also, in keeping with Article 48.1.f of the Convention and Article 37.4 of the
Rules of Procedure in force at the time, the IACHR made itself available to the parties to negotiate a friendly
settlement on the matter.
6.
After a deadline extension and repeated reminders from the Commission, on June 20 and 23,
2014, the petitioners submitted additional comments on the merits. The Commission forwarded that brief
and its addendums to the State for it to submit its comments within the term of four months, as established in
the Rules of Procedure. On October 22, 2014, the State submitted additional comments on the merits. On
January 4, 2014, the petitioners submitted additional comments, which were forwarded to the State.
7.
On March 17, 2015, the Commission held a public hearing on the merits of the case during
which it received testimony from Linda Loaiza López Soto and the pleadings of the parties. The cost of Ms.
López’s participation in the hearing was covered by the Legal Assistance Fund of the inter-American human
rights system, pursuant to the Rules of Procedure of the IACHR governing its use.
8.
On May 1, 2015, the petitioners submitted an additional brief with comments, which was
forwarded to the State of Venezuela.
III.

POSITION OF THE PARTIES

A.

The petitioners

9.
The petitioners alleged that Linda Loaiza López Soto was kidnapped by Luis Carrera Almoina
in the city of Caracas on March 27, 2001, and that he kept her deprived of liberty until July 19 of the same
year, at which time she was able to call for help and was rescued by local authorities. They held the during the
kidnapping, Linda Loaiza López was seriously abused and tortured by her attacker, who subjected her to a
variety of kinds of physical, sexual, and psychological violence, causing serious injuries whose effects persist
to this day.
10.
They indicated that in the early morning hours of the day following the kidnapping of Linda
Loaiza López—that is, on March 28, 2001—her sister, Ana Cecelia López, received a phone call in which a
voice she did not recognize told her that “Linda would not be coming home,” and that when she tried to call
the number back, she heard a recorded message saying that it belonged to Luis Carrera Almoina. They
indicated that with this information and because the whereabouts of her sister were unknown, Ana Secilia
López went to file a report with the police, but they would not accept it because they said the issue was a
“domestic problem” and they had to wait it out. They held that Ana Secilia López tried to file the report at
3 IACHR, Report No. 154/10, Petition 1462-07, Admissibility, Linda Loaiza López Soto and relatives, Venezuela, November 1,
2010, paras. 6 and 7.

Select target paragraph3