barriers that women who are victims of violence in Venezuela face accessing the justice system—including when filing complaints—and that they receive proper attention, not only in order to try and punish those responsible but also in the interest of directly improving victim protection and preventing further violence against victims. One of these barriers that is especially concerning is the discriminatory stereotypes employed by authorities at the time of the facts of the case among, which, as indicated in other cases, the Commission has found lead to a failure to respond to the complaints.235 Specifically, the information analyzed reveals a context of failures to act on the part of the authorities in charge of receiving reports of violence against women, including a lack of training for officials, mistreatment of the victims and their relatives, apathetic response, and a general lack of sensitivity toward the issue. 167. In addition to the consistency of the allegations that the report was turned away and the context of the moment at which the facts took place, the State has neither challenged the allegations nor provided any evidence to discredit them. So for example, the State has not launched any investigation into the circumstances and potential responsibility for the refusal to receive the report, despite being aware of it. Neither has the State provided information to contradict Ana Secilia López’s testimony, such as for example the complaints records from the days on which she said she tried to file one. With regard to the context, the State did not submit information enabling the IACHR to conclude that State authorities effectively receive these types of complaints on the disappearances of women in a timely fashion and respond to them immediately and effectively as required and described in this report. The Venezuelan State also did not contradict the allegation that while Linda Loaiza López was being held, the complaint filed by her sister was in the end recorded as a report of threats against her herself. In addition to not challenging this, the State has not offered any explanation of this situation nor indicated the reasons as to why as of that moment it still did not take any measures to determine the whereabouts of Linda Loaiza López. 168. For its part, Linda Loaiza López’s family had no way beyond their own testimonies to prove the State had failed to accept the complaint.236The Inter-American Court has already ruled on such situations, specifically with regard to weighing of evidence in situations in which it is alleged that the corresponding authority refused to receive a report of a woman’s disappearance in a timely manner and in a certain context. The Inter-American Court has found that in this situation, in the absence of evidence to the contrary from the State, the testimony of the relatives is enough to prove what happened. 237In the Commission’s view, this manner of weighing the evidence is further justified when, as indicated in the foregoing paragraphs, the testimony on the obstacles to presenting the complaint is consistent with a more generalized context characterized precisely by such omissions. 169. Under these circumstances, the Commission does not find any elements to call into question the credibility of the facts described by Ana Secilia López and therefore finds it that the State knew or should have known of the situation of real or imminent risk faced by Linda Loaiza López starting two months before her rescue.238 170. Finally, regarding the third element, it is not in dispute that the State’s first action with regard to Linda Loaiza López took place on July 19, 2001, when she was rescued. Consequently, from the moment her sister tried to file the complaint almost immediately after Linda Loaiza López was deprived of liberty to her rescue almost 4 months later, the State did not take any measures to determine her whereabouts and prevent the continuation of the violence against her. 235 109. IACHR. Report No. 53/13. Case 12,777. Claudina Isabel Velásquez Paiz et al. (Guatemala). Merits. November 4, 2013, para. 236 See: Mutatis mutandis. Inter-American Court. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez. v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 21, 2007. Series C No. 170. Para. 73. 237 Inter-American Court. Claudina Isabel Velásquez Paiz et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 19, 2015. Series C No. 307. Para. 53 and 54. 238 141-142. See: IACHR, Report No. 80/11, Case 12,626, Merits, Jessica Lenahan (Gonzales) et al., (United States), July 21, 2011, paras.