least six times and that the report was only accepted two and a half months later, and then it was not accepted as a report on the disappearance of Linda, but as a report of a death threat against Ana Secilia López. 11. The petitioners indicated that Mr. Carrera Almoina repeatedly victimized Linda Loaiza López, inflicting upon her severe forms of physical, psychological and sexual abuse. They indicated that the alleged assailant hit the victim, smoked and put out cigarettes on her body, burned her with a lighter an raped her repeatedly. They stated that he also forced her to take drugs and watch pornographic movies. Oftentimes he left her tied up, handcuffed, wither her mouth gagged, sometimes enclosed in the bathroom or the closet or tied to the bed. They claimed that the alleged perpetrator always made sure the curtains were drawn and the doors were well locked and that the victim was not close to the telephone. According to the petitioners, Luis Carrera Almoina constantly told her that he had previously killed eight women and dropped their bodied on the highway. They stated that, during the kidnapping, the alleged assailant took Linda Loaiza López to the house of this father, who did nothing about the matter, although he witnessed the abuse suffered by the victim. 12. The petitioners pointed out that, on July 19, 2001, Mr. Almoina contacted his father to inform him that Linda Loaiza López was no longer of any use to him and that he would look for black bags to take her out of the place where she was. They indicated that the rescue of Linda Loaiza López began because on that same date she took advantage of her attacker’s absence to call for help to people nearby from the window of the apartment where she was being held. They indicated that due to her poor health and physical condition, she had to be taken in an ambulance to the University Hospital of Caracas. They stated that it took five hours after her rescue for her to be transported to the hospital. They indicated that from the very first moment of her rescue, Linda Loaiza López identified Luis Carrera Almoina as her attacker and said she had been victim of sexual violence. They also said that after she was rescued, Linda Loaiza López initially had to stay in a number of different hospitals over a period of 15 months, and that during that time, the Public Prosecutor issued an order denying her access to her attorney, affecting her right to have information and assistance on the investigation and criminal proceeding. 13. The petitioner stated that the case of Linda Loaiza López is an emblematic example of the “institutional violence and re-victimization suffered by women who are victims of sexual violence and seek justice” in Venezuela. They indicated that although it is a problem throughout the region, it can be demonstrated that in Venezuela there is a context of “general impunity” in cases of violence against women— and in cases of rape in particular—that has not been properly addressed by the Venezuelan State. The petitioner submitted information containing official statistics on cases of violence against women and the failure to effectively process them through the courts, along with a variety of documentation on the obstacles faced by the victims of gender-based violence when seeking justice in Venezuela. They highlighted the lack of access to official numbers on the situation that are public and up-to-date. They also indicated that the available data suffers from underreporting—meaning that levels of impunity are actually higher—given the lack of trust in the courts and reluctance to use the justice system. 14. Regarding the legal framework on the issue of violence against women, the petitioners indicated that although the State has implemented significant legal and institutional initiatives, insufficient attention is paid to victims of violence; several of the plans that were ordered implemented face legislative delays; and no clear public policy against gender-based violence has been adopted. Specifically with regard to the crime of rape, they indicated that the 1947 Criminal Code in force at the time the facts took place considered it a crime “against good customs;” required that it involve threats or violence to be classified as such—not lack of consent; and established distinctions allowing for a reduced sentence: for example, if the victim was a “prostitute.” 15. The petitioners allege that although the facts were committed by a private individual, the State failed to comply with its enhanced obligation to prevent, investigate, and punish acts of violence against women. With regard to the duty to prevent, they held that the State was aware that Linda Loaiza López was at risk and did not take any measures to establish her whereabouts despite the repeated attempts of her sister to report her disappearance.