63. The medical record also indicated that an emergency exploratory laparoscopic surgery was performed, she had to have four blood transfusions, and a variety medical services were administered that same night. One of the doctors who took care of her at that time describes the following: […]We have 50 years of experience, […] We receive gunshot wounded and we have never seen a case of so much brutality and cruelty against an individual, it seems that maximum power weapons had been used to cause this damage […] she had abdominal, genital and face lesions, […] the brutality and cruelty is extreme [...] the lower lip is very torn up and she had lost almost all the red part of it and it was sort of mashed, the tissue was completely inflamed, she lost it from being beaten, [...] the ears had what you call cauliflower ear, which is chronic and happens when they have been struck repeatedly, the damage to her jawbone and lips can’t be more than 15 days old, [...] if not corrected she wouldn’t be able to chew or talk or appear in public because she would have looked like a monster, her face would have been sunken in, and that’s apart from the pain, the beatings had destroyed her face so badly that the mucosa had been pushed inside [...]37 64. The forensic medicine examination, which consisted of a gynecological and external genital exam, found the presence of an “extensive and scarred tear that extends all the way to the vaginal mucosa and adjacent vulva,” “older deflowering and signs of genital trauma produced more than 8 days ago,” “scabbedover abrasion on the nasal dorsum, multiple anfractuous injuries of various sizes on both lips, substantial external loss with signs of infection on the left auricle [...] signs of abrasions on both hands and dorsal lumbar area.”38 65. The 33rd Prosecutor of the Office of the Public Prosecutor, which initially assumed investigation of the case, issued an order banning Linda Loaiza López from receiving visitors while she was hospitalized at the University Hospital The State indicated that the measure was taken, “in order to preserve her physical safety and the investigation.”39 On July 25, 2001, the 33rd Prosecutor sent an official letter to the legal counsel of the University Hospital Clinic informing them that visits from the mother, the father, and an aunt were allowed.40 66. According to the testimony of Linda Loaiza López and her parents, although they requested it and she had been missing for several months, access was only granted when the Office of the Public Prosecutor ordered that the parents be allowed to visit, and they had to demonstrate that “they truly were [her] parents,” since there was “also an issue because [they] are foreigners so [they had to] prove the familial relationship.”41 At that time, Paulina Soto was pregnant. She states in her testimony that when she heard the news that her daughter had been found: 37 Annex 4. Decision of the Twentieth First Instance Trial Tribunal of the Caracas Metropolitan Area. Case No. 20.-253. November 5, 2004. Statement of Olaf Sadner Montilla, surgeon, pgs. 168-169. Annex D of the brief from the petitioners, July 14, 2009. 38 Annex 13. Ministery of Justice and the Interior. National Directorate of Criminal Investigations (Technical Body of the Judicial Police), General Forensic Medicine Division. Forensic Evidence No. 8.704-2.001 from the forensic medical examination performed on Linda López on July 27, 2001, by forensic doctor José Enrique Moros. Annex A-1 of the brief from the petitioners, July 14, 2009. 39 Brief from the State, October 22, 2014, pg. 16. Official Letter No. AMC.C-33-660-2001 of July 25, 2001, of the 33rd Prosecutor of the Public Ministry of the Caracas Metropolitan Area, addressed to Dr. Luis Virgilio Parra, of the legal counsel of the University Hospital Clinic of the Universidad Central de Venezuela. Cited in the brief from the State, October 22, 2014, pg. 16. 40 41 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 Ana Secilia Soto also stated that she went to the University Hospital after being notified by the 33rd Prosecutor on July 24, 2001, that she stayed with her, but that Linda “was prohibited from receiving any kind of visit, they [her parents] had to go to the Prosecutor to get permission […].”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.