4 was incapable of committing such atrocious actions. They contend that, the day the victim filed individual charges, the Prosecutor forced her to sign a statement under threats, without allowing her to read it. 17. The petitioners submitted, along with their petition, three complaints that they filed with the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic, the Supreme Court of Justice and the Office of the Inspector General of the Courts, on November 14 and 21 of 2001, and December 13, 2001, respectively, regarding the alleged irregularities committed by the Prosecutor in charge of the case, but they claim that she was never sanctioned or withdrawn from the case. 18. They also claim that many mistakes and omissions were made during the investigation and the gathering of evidence related to the sexual abuse sustained by Linda Loaiza Linda López, citing guidelines from the World Health Organization. They argue that DNA tests were never performed even in the presence of sufficient elements; that material evidence of criminal interest was lost at the site of the incidents because of insufficient safekeeping; that evidence based on luminol applied to detect traces of blood in all sites of the incidents was never gathered; and the forensic tests were not conducted until eight days after the rescue of the alleged victim, among other omissions. Likewise, they indicate that no line of investigation was ever followed to establish the alleged victim’s absence of consent to engage in sexual intercourse with the alleged assailant. 19. The petitioners also allege irregularities allegedly committed by the judges involved in the various stages of the criminal proceedings. They consider it unusual that a warrant for house arrest had been ordered on November 2, 2001 by Judge 18 of the Control of the Criminal Circuit Court of Justice of Caracas in view of the severity of the crimes involved in this case. They report that this measure led to an 5 attempted escape by Luis Carrera Almoina, with his father’s support and with the use of State assets, on November 6, 2001. They state that this measure was ordered because the Prosecutor in charge of the case filed her charges after the statutory time limit had passed, for the sole purpose of having the assailant release on parole. They argue that the judge who issued the warrant for house arrest repealed it on November 6, ordering the accused to be imprisoned. As a result, the above-mentioned judge was dismissed on November 7, 2001 by the Chair of the Restructuring and Functioning Commission, who was a very close friend of the family of Luis Carrera Almoina. 20. The petitioners also claim that Judge Yakeline Herrera Soler unjustifiably dropped the charges personally filed by Linda Loaiza López on June 6, 2003, on the grounds that Ms. López had not appeared at the preliminary hearing, although she had submitted a medical report and proof of hospitalization. In response to this ruling, the petitioners filed an appeal for reconsideration on July 8, 2003, which was dismissed, and then an appeal on constitutional grounds on October 23, 2003, which 6 was ruled inadmissible. 21. The petitioners also specify irregularities regarding the selection of the lay juror-judges (escabinos), the many judges declining to judge the case, and a large number of deferrals during the trial. They indicate that a total number of 76 judges heard the case, because of the 59 motions for refusal to judge the case requested by various judges. During the trial, the petitioners claim that hearings were deferred on 38 occasions. They allege that, on various occasions, the judges requested to be recused because of threats they had received and because the case involved a powerful family with political influence. They indicate that one of the judges who heard the case expressed, in her recusal request, her disgust at the citizen Linda Loaiza López and her sister Ana Cecilia López. The petitioners highlight that they filed several writs to challenge the many deferrals and recusals with the Office of the Inspector General of the Courts on September 15, 2004 and with the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic on May 31, 2006, without any results. 5 The petitioners claim that the father of the alleged assailant was acquitted of the charges of embezzlement and obstruction of justice. 6 The petitioners did not submit any information indicating that the personal accusation filed by Linda Loaiza López Soto has been reinstated in the framework of the criminal proceedings.