judges who issued the acquittal referred infra, and for which it is indicated that the General Inspectorate of Tribunals decide to dismiss.146 106. In August 2004, Linda Loaiza López went on a hunger strike in front of the doors of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice.147 In the hearing before the IACHR, she stated that she took this measure protest to demand the start of the oral trial and because by that time, “more than 60 judges (…) [had] recused themselves from hearing the case simply because the attacker is the son of an important public figure in Venezuela.”148 4. Oral trial and acquittal in Judicial Process No. 20,253 107. The oral trial was held in October of 2004. It concluded on October 21, 2004, with the Twentieth First Instance Trial Court ruling to acquit Luis Carrera Almoina, his father and the employee of the Universidad Nacional Abierta of the crimes for which they were charged.149 On November 5, 2004, the Twentieth Court issued the corresponding sentence with the reasoning to provide justification for its decision. 108. In this section, the Commission reviews some aspects of the oral trial and the reasoning of the aforementioned sentence of November 5, 2004.150 109. Prior to the start of the oral trial, the legal counsel of Luis Carrera Almoina asked that it be carried out “behind closed doors” in keeping with the provisions of the Organic Criminal Procedural Code in force at the time for certain crimes qualifying to public indictment. Linda Loaiza López’s position was that the trial should be public. The judge ruled that the oral arguments would take place “partially behind closed doors,” specifically when the arguments touched on “crimes against good customs.”151 110. The text of the sentence indicates that the defense counsel of Luis Carrera Almoina reiterated his version of events: that he had a romantic relationship with Linda Loaiza López, that he was trying to help her because of her family and economic situation, and that the injuries and attacks she suffered were caused by another person. The defense indicated that everything started when Luis Carrera Almoina decided to call for the services of escorts advertised in the newspaper “for the normal purposes of the needs [...] of men.” The sentence indicates that Linda Loaiza López’s attorney objected to these expressions because 146 See: Annex 78. Request to reconsider submitted by Linda López and her attorney to the General Inspectorate of Tribunals on November 10, 2006. Annex “07 Inspectoría Tribunales” of the brief from the petitioners, June 20, 2014. 147 The case file before the IACHR contains a number of news items from the media coverage of the trial and Linda López’s allegations regarding the irregularities of the process. See: Annex 49. Annex “10 Notas periodísticas” of the brief from the petitioners, June 20, 2014; and Annex 80. News items. Annex to the initial petition of November 12, 2007. 148 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 149 Action cited by the State in its brief of observations of October 22, 2014, pg. 58. 150 In addition to the considerations cited hereinafter, the sentence of the Twentieth Court acquitted the defendents with regard to: i) the crime of impeding and obstructing a judicial action through fraud, as Luis Carrera Almoina and his father were charged with, reasoning that what happened on leaving the place where he had to serve his house arrest was a failure to comply with that measure, meaning that the corresponding response would be to revoke that measure pursuant to Article 271 of the Organic Criminal Procedural Code in force at that time; ii) the crime of embezzlement, with which the father of Luis Carrera Almoina was charged, reasoning that he had acted “out of necessity,” exempting him from criminal responsibility because the life of his son was “in grave danger, since he was being accused of criminal acts that caused a national uproar, all because of how the case in question was covered in the media, and what was affecting his child compelled him, giving his status as a father [...]; and iii) the crime of cover-up with which the employee of the Universidad Nacional Abierta was charged, reasoning that it had not been proven that this individual “intended to aid in the failure to comply with a precautionary measure in lieu of prison.” Annex 4. Decision of the Twentieth First Instance Trial Tribunal of the Caracas Metropolitan Area Criminal Circuit. Single-judge tribunal, November 5, 2004. Case No. 20,253, pgs. 388, 392-397. Annex D of the brief from the petitioners, July 14, 2009. 151 Annex 4. Decision of the Twentieth First Instance Trial Tribunal of the Caracas Metropolitan Area Criminal Circuit. Singlejudge tribunal, November 5, 2004. Case No. 20,253, pg. 3. Annex D of the brief from the petitioners, July 14, 2009.