violence” were committed by the alleged attacker in order to discriminate against the alleged victim; to “destroy her personality and harm her capacity as a woman” through “numerous acts of humiliation;” and “to demonstrate power and control.” They indicated that although “the purpose of discrimination” is not explicitly established in the ICPPT, it should be considered as included in the reference “to any other purpose” of Article 2. It is also provided for in the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment Regarding the suffering caused, they pointed to the physical and mental suffering inherent to sexual violence and reiterated that Linda Loaiza López suffered “terrible” physical and psychological injuries during the more than 120 days she was deprived of liberty when she was 18 years old and has gone through a long recovery process. 24. As a result, with regard to this point they asked the IACHR to find that the State violated Article 5 of the Convention in conjunction with the obligations contained in its Article 1.1; Articles 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará; and articles 1, 6, and 8 of the ICPPT. They also alleged that the State is responsible for the violation of the right to humane treatment to the detriment of Linda Loaiza López because of the impunity in which this case remains. They also alleged the violation of this right with regard to her relatives. 25. The petitioners alleged that the State is also responsible for the violation of the rights to judicial guarantees and judicial protection in conjunction with the obligations contained in Article 1.1 of the ACHR; the violation of Article 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará; and the violation of articles 1, 6, and 8 of the ICPPT, due to the impunity in which the facts of sexual violence committed to the detriment of Linda Loaiza López remain. They emphasized that these facts should be analyzed according to the standards derived from the absolute prohibition of torture and the obligation of enhanced due diligence in cases of violence against women. 26. In addition to their pleadings regarding irregularities in the investigation and criminal process, the petitioners alleged that the assessment of the evidence during the domestic proceedings was discriminatory because it was based on stereotypes regarding her sexuality and the role of a woman. They alleged that during the trial, discussion revolved around the alleged sexual and work activity of Linda Loaiza López, giving the greatest weight to the testimony of Luis Carrera Almoina, who argued that her injuries were caused by others, that Linda and her sister belong to a prostitution ring, and that Linda had “seduced” and blackmailed him. They indicated that the judges required Linda Loaiza López’s testimony be corroborated through other evidentiary means in order to establish responsibility for the crime of rape. This hurt her credibility and implicitly blamed her for what took place. They argued that the State discriminated in its application of criminal law and also violated articles 1.1 and 24 of the Convention. 27. Finally, the petitioners argued that the State failed to comply with its duties to adopt provisions in domestic law to effectively guarantee Linda Loaiza López’s rights. First, they allege the violation of articles 2 and 24 of the American Convention because at the time of the facts, the provisions of the Criminal Code covering the crime of rape were in themselves discriminatory. Second, they indicated that the State failed to comply with the obligations contained in Article 2 of the Convention and articles 1, 6, and 8 of the ICPPT, since although Venezuela has been a party to the latter instrument since 1991, at the time of the facts the crime of torture was not defined under the domestic law. B. The State 28. During the merits stage, the State submitted an account of the facts and actions surrounding the rescue of Linda Loaiza López on July 19, 2001, as well as the investigation and criminal proceeding launched in the case. The State highlighted the “quick actions” of the police who helped with the rescue, as well as the actions taken by the Office of the Public Prosecutor and the Courts in that process. The State also indicated that all the authorities and institutions with competency to protect fundamental rights, the rights of women, and the right to justice have followed up on the case at the domestic level in a timely fashion. 29. As far as the petitioners’ allegations on the reports that one of Linda Loaiza López’s sisters tried to file that were not accepted in a timely fashion by the Technical Judicial Police, the State reiterated that