7 35. As part of the criminal proceedings, the State asserts that various drawings were carried out to choose the lay juror-judges (escabinos) between March 11 and June 20, 2002, for the purpose of setting up a mixed court, including one professional judge and two lay juror-judges, without any concrete results. By default, on August 22, 2002, the Thirtieth Trial Court of First Instance of the Criminal Circuit Court of Justice (hereinafter referred to as the “Thirtieth Judge”) set up a Single-Judge Trial Court, at the request of Luis Carrera Almoina and his father, in conformity with the provisions of Article 164 of the Criminal Organic Process Code. It points out that the institution of lay juror-judges in Venezuelan procedural law is aimed at ensuring that the facts submitted to the Preliminary Hearing during the oral and public discussion be reviewed not only by a law professional but also by a citizen who has no legal training, thus making sure that citizens can be judged by their peers and that they have the right to participate in the administration of justice. It alleges that, after five calls, the accused could waive the right to be judged by lay juror-judges. The State explained that, although on December 22, 2003, the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice had issued a binding ruling considering as undue delay the inability to establish a court with lay juror-judges after two calls, this ruling was not applicable at the time of the events. 36. The State also considers that the duration of the criminal proceedings was determined by the abundance of objections and absences by the parties, in which the petitioner played an important role. It points out that the petitioners contributed to the delays in the criminal proceedings, repeatedly requesting deferral of the oral hearings between January 29 and June 4, 2003 because of the victim’s health. It alleges that this led the Thirtieth Judge of the Trial Court of First Instance of the Criminal Circuit Court of the Metropolitan Area of Caracas to declare in a justified fashion the discharge of the personal accusation filed by Linda Loaiza López, by virtue of her failure to appear in court on various occasions. In any case, on January 26, 2004, the Third Interim Tribunal of the Court of Appeals of the Criminal Circuit Court of Justice restored the status of plaintiff to Linda Loaiza, thus remedying the violations that the petitioner might have suffered. 37. The State observes that the petitioners refer to the recusals requests of the judges and magistrates during the criminal proceedings as if these constituted themselves an irregularity in the performance of the court’s duties, without explaining that the case file provides clear information on this matter and that only a few were admitted. It also provides a list of five recusals presented by Linda Loaiza López during the proceedings, which constituted a tool for fine-tuning the process for her benefit when she felt that the impartiality of the judges and prosecutors involved had been undermined. 38. The State contends that, on November 5, 2004, a judgment of acquittal was issued regarding the injuries and other acts perpetrated against Linda Loaiza López. They consider that the petitioner has neglected to explain that this court ruling was preceded by an explanation of its grounds. The State asserts that the court found that the charges of qualified attempted murder and rape had been configured, based on the physical condition and severity of the injuries shown by Linda Loaiza López at the time of her rescue. Nevertheless, the court considered that the statements made by the victim were not upheld by other elements of evidence that could demonstrate that the injuries were inflicted inside the apartment where she was found, among other considerations. 39. The State highlights that the plenary of the National Congress, on November 6, 2004, agreed to establish a working team of congresspersons with respect to the court ruling of November 5, 2004. Afterwards, the Congress unanimously issued a public communiqué rejecting this judgment on November 26, 2004. 40. The State highlights that, on March 9, 2006, after the judgment of November 5, 2004 was appealed, the Seventh Trial Court of the Metropolitan Area of Caracas convicted Luis Carrera Almoina to six years imprisonment and one month of hard labor for the crimes of grievous bodily injuries and illegal restraint. It indicates that the judgment – published on May 22, 2006 - acquitted Luis Carrera Almoina of the crime of rape, among others. On May 8, 2008, the Court of First Instance for Implementation of Sentencing of the Criminal Circuit Court of the Metropolitan Area of Caracas declared that Mr. Almoina’s main sentence had been fully served.