35. The State argued that it had not arbitrarily violated the right to privacy of the alleged victim or her relatives, as the petitioners’ allegations that Linda Loaiza López and her sister had allegedly been investigated for belonging to a prostitution ring does not correspond to the reality of the domestic criminal case file. The State explained that because the ruling to acquit—which requested that this investigation be opened—was annulled, its provisions were voided and replaced with a later decision. Without prejudice to this, the State reported that the Office of the Public Prosecutor “has not received any formal complaint” for such facts and therefore it cannot be assigned responsibility for alleged discriminatory conduct resulting in international responsibility. 36. In its narration of the processes, the State indicated that the aforementioned ruling to acquit was later annulled by the Seventh Chamber of the Appellate Court on April 12, 2005, which ordered a new trial to be held. That trial began on November 9, 2005, and the pleadings of the parties concluded on April 9, 2006. The State indicated that this proceeding resulted in the conviction of Luis Carrera Almoina for the crimes of serious personal injury and illegal deprivation of liberty and a sentence of six years and one month in prison. It indicated that this sentence was upheld on December 19, 2006, and the write of cassation filed by Linda Loaiza López’s legal counsel was dismissed. 37. The State reported that on May 8, 2008, the First Instance Sentence Execution Tribunal of the Caracas Metropolitan Area ruled that the principal sentence imposed on Luis Carrera Almoina had been served, releasing him to the “supervision of the authorities” for a period equivalent to a quarter of the time period of his sentence, which concluded on November 15, 2009. The State indicated that on November 26 of that year, “expiry of criminal responsibility” was declared with regard to Luis Carrera Almoina. 38. The State also observed that the petitioners had pointed to the recusals and disqualifications of prosecutors, judges, and magistrates during the criminal process as if they in themselves represented an irregularity without explaining that they were duly processed in the case file and that only some of them were admitted. It added that according to the applicable legal framework, these incidents cannot be considered an “instrument of procedural delay” because they do not interrupt the case itself and their purpose is rather to “ensure the suitability and quality of the court officials.” 39. The State highlighted that during the course of the process, Linda Loaiza López requested a number of recusals as a tool for correcting the process to her benefit when she felt the impartiality of the judges and prosecutors involved had been compromised. It indicated that the postponements ordered during the trial were partly due to the various recusals and failures of the parties to appear and that, among other reasons, the alleged victim’s health status “was a determining factor as far as the duration of the process.” The State indicated that while it recognized the seriousness of the injuries suffered by Linda Loaiza López, the procedural delays cannot be laid at its feet but was rather the result of the “dynamic of the parties to the process.” 40. It also held that the petitioners are imprecise and “reckless” in the way they refer to the suspension of the judge in charge of the Eighteenth Court—which annulled the house arrest measure on November 6, 2001—by the Commission on the Functioning and Restructuring of the Judicial System (hereinafter “the CFRSJ” according to its Spanish acronym). It claimed that: i) the judge had committed an infraction on annulling, motu propio, the ruling he had previously made, something that the law does not allow; ii) the provisional measure ordered against the judge was a 60-day suspension while the corresponding procedure was carried out before the General Inspectorate of Tribunals; and iii) the president of the CFRSJ at the time did not in the end participate as a witness in the criminal proceeding against Luis Carrera Almoina. 41. The State also held that the allegations of the petitioners as far as the lack of prevention and effective punishment of rape do not allow for the conclusion that the State should be held internationally responsible, since although different factors from international organizations on the crime of rape are used, they are applied to contexts and facts that are different from the ones in this case. More specifically, the State repeated the arguments from its response to the initial petition to the effect that the violations were committed by a private party and not State agents.