5 22. They allege that, on November 5, 2004, Judge Rosa Cádiz Randon, of the Twentieth Single-Judge Court of First Instance of the Criminal Circuit Court of the Metropolitan Area of Caracas, fully acquitted the accused in the case of injuries and other acts perpetrated against Linda Loaiza López. The petitioners indicate that, in this judgment, the judge stated that the crime of rape had occurred, but that there was not enough evidence to declare the accused. Therefore, the petitioners consider that the irregularities committed in the investigation stage, especially the errors and omissions in gathering the evidence highlighted above supra paragraph 18, led to the impunity of the crime of rape. The petitioners also emphasized that Venezuela’s law on the crime of rape is obsolete and not in line with international standards on the matter, recognizing this crime is committed only if there is evidence of use of force or threats. 23. The petitioners claim that the judgment of November 5, 2004 was the target of a statement of repudiation by the Venezuela’s National Congress. They point out that they filed a writ with the Judiciary Commission of the Supreme Court of Justice on October 25, 2004, reporting the irregularities committed by the Judge who issued the above-mentioned judgment, such as insulting the victim and her attorney, illegally incorporating evidence of facts that do not exist and for issuing a discriminatory judgment transforming the alleged victim into an assailant, without any measure ever having been adopted in response. 24. The petitioners state that they appealed the judgment of November 5, 2004, as a result of which the judgment was overturned and Luis Carrera Almoina imprisoned on April 12, 2005. On March 9, 2006, the Seventh Single-Judge Trial Court of First Instance of the Criminal Circuit Court of the Metropolitan Area of Caracas convicted Mr. Almoina to six years imprisonment for the crimes of inflicting grievous bodily injuries and the illegitimate deprivation of liberty, but acquitted him of the crime of rape. They allege that this ruling was upheld on May 11, 2007, date on which the appeal to a court of last resort to overrule the previous judgment filed by the attorney of the alleged victim was ruled inadmissible. 25. The petitioners contend that the case of Linda Loaiza López has had a high profile in the Venezuelan society, because of the seriousness of the physical, psychological and sexual injuries she suffered, and her persistent pursuit of justice. The petitioners claim that the “use of influences, cronyism, and the purchase of authorities creates a climate of impunity” regarding crimes of sexual violence. They contend that to blame a victim for the sexual violence suffered is a common phenomenon, which reflects a patriarchal mentality contrary to the rights of women. It implies that a victim is to blame for the trauma she suffered, and negatively exposes her and her family to the society, violating her honor and dignity. 26. Finally, the petitioners contend that, from the start of the criminal process in 2001, Linda Loaiza López, her next of kin and attorney have been victims of a series of threats and harassment in the country that have jeopardized their physical and psychological safety. They identify a series of attacks between 2004 and 2007, which were reported to state authorities. They allege that they were beneficiaries of state protection measures, but that the latter were not effectively complied with. B. Position of the State 27. The State contends that it cannot be held liable for the alleged violations because they were perpetrated by a private actor rather than a public official. It also explains that the acts were not perpetrated with the consent or approval of the State, because when the State learned of these, it opened an investigation that made it possible to prosecute and convict those responsible. 28. The State considers that, during the proceedings where Linda Loaiza López appeared as the victim, all the acts were substantiated in conformity with the rules of due process of law. It states that the Prosecutor started the investigation promptly, seriously and effectively to clarify the incidents during which Linda Loaiza López was injured. The State also asserts that, in the context of criminal proceedings, a balance must be struck between the victim’s constitutional rights and the guarantees of due process provided by the Constitution to the acussed. It alleges that the fact that the person charged, the victim or the Prosecutor’s Office as parties to the proceedings are adversely affected by a court ruling does not imply that the right to due process of law has been infringed or that there has been discrimination.