that she was able to talk with her sister only once, but Linda Loaiza insulted her and said “leave me alone, I don’t want to know anything about you or my siblings or my dad, bitch [...].” According to Ana Secilia, “Linda’s voice was not normal” and she felt “very bad” because she “did not know what was happening.”15 50. As indicated later on, there is no dispute over the fact that Linda Loaiza López was rescued almost four months later, on July 19, 2001, by the Chacao Municipal Police and the fire department. However, there is dispute over what the State knew and the actions it took between the disappearance and the rescue. 51. As Ana Secilia López tells it, on March 28, 2001, she went to one of the offices of the Technical Judicial Police (PTJ in its Spanish acronym) on Avenida Urdaneta in Caracas to report her sister’s disappearance. She stated that she gave an official the information about the phone call she received, and the telephone number, but he told her, “let’s wait,” and refused to receive the report, telling her that “they are probably a couple.” According to her testimony, she tried to file the report “six times” and it was not until “like two and a half months later” that it was accepted.16 The petitioners indicated that the report was not processed as a report of the disappearance of Linda Loaiza López but as a report of a death threat against Ana Secilia López.17 The State did not dispute this information. 52. The information provided by the parties, in particular the description of events from Ana Secilia and her parents, indicates that until the rescue of Linda Loaiza López on July 19, 2001, her family did not know her whereabouts and was not aware of any action taken by the authorities in response to the report that was filed.18 3. The facts of March 27, 2001, and the testimony of Linda Loaiza López regarding her deprivation of liberty 53. The information provided by the parties and the testimony given by Linda Loaiza López Soto during the hearing on the merits of the case before the IACHR19 indicate that she reported to the Venezuelan authorities that on the morning of March 27, 2001, when she was leaving her residence in Caracas, she was [… continuation] going to pay for it.” See: Annex 4. Decision of the Twentieth First Instance Trial Tribunal of the Caracas Metropolitan Area. Case No. 20.253. November 5, 2004. Statement of Ana Secilia López Soto, pgs. 252-253. Annex D of the brief from the petitioners, July 14, 2009. 15 Annex 4. Decision of the Twentieth First Instance Trial Tribunal of the Caracas Metropolitan Area. Case No. 20.-253. November 5, 2004. Statement of Ana Secilia López Soto, pg. 252. Annex D of the brief from the petitioners, July 14, 2009. 16 Ana Secilia López stated during the domestic criminal proceeding that she continue trying to communicate with Luis Carrera Almoina, begging him to tell her where her sister was. She stated that “[...] I tried calling the local number. A man answered and I told him I was receiving calls from the number and asked for Carrera Almoina. He told me it was his son and told me his name was […], then I said my sister had disappeared and was kidnapped and he said quit bothering me, that I wasn’t getting calls from that number and that he didn’t know anything. Another time I called again and he insulted me and told me not to call again or he would tell his son to find me and kill me, and I didn’t call that number again [...]”Annex 4. Decision of the Twentieth First Instance Trial Tribunal of the Caracas Metropolitan Area. Case No. 20.-253. November 5, 2004. Statement of Ana Secilia López Soto, pg. 256. Annex D of the brief from the petitioners, July 14, 2009. 17 Brief of the petitioners of June 20, 2014, pg. 32. Ana Secilia López stated during the domestic criminal proceeding that she continued to insist and was “desperate” because “he [Luis Carrera Almoina] continued calling and tormenting me, he said vulgar things to me, I didn’t know where to turn [...].” She stated that “At the police station they said they were going to investigate, come back in five days, the guy I filed the report with disappeared, [...] they gave me the [receipt] it should be in the case file because I submitted it [...] I had already gone to the police two times what else could I do.” Annex 4. Decision of the Twentieth First Instance Trial Tribunal of the Caracas Metropolitan Area. Case No. 20.-253. November 5, 2004. Statement of Ana Secilia López Soto, pgs. 252-256. Annex D of the brief of the petitioners of July 14, 2009; and Annex 6. Decision of the Seventh First Instance Trial Tribunal of the Caracas Metropolitan Area. Case File No. 313-05. May 22, 2006, pg. 149. Annex E of the brief from the petitioners, July 14, 2009. Also see: Annex 4. Decision of the Twentieth First Instance Trial Tribunal of the Caracas Metropolitan Area. Case No. 20.-253. November 5, 2004. Statement of Nelson López Meza, pg. 247. Annex D of the brief from the petitioners, July 14, 2009; and Annex 8. Testimony of Paulina Soto, Nelson López Meza, Ana López Soto, Diana López Soto and Nelson Enrique López Soto. Annex “11 Varios Testimonios Familia López Soto” of the brief from the petitioners, June 20, 2014. 18 19 Hearing on the Merits No. 17, Case of Linda Loaiza López Soto and relatives (Venezuela), 154th Period of Sessions, March 2015. Statement of Linda Loaiza López Soto. Available at: http://www.oas.org/es/cidh/multimedia/sesiones/154/default.asp