114. With regard to the evidence offered during the trial on the physical and psychological injuries suffered by Linda Loaiza López, the court established that she suffered from trauma, depression, posttraumatic stress syndrome, cataracts on her eyes, and other ailments, but took into consideration other aspects such as: i) it was “difficult to establish the object” that had been used to cause certain injuries, like the injuries she indicated had been caused with a “broomstick” that the accused tried to insert in her vagina, indicating that it could have been caused by “something smaller;” ii) she had some scars that were “recent and others that were not, it seemed as if she had been penetrated on multiple occasions;” iii) according to the statement of a clinical psychologist, the posttraumatic stress “could have been caused by rape, abuse, or torture [...] however, [Linda failed to indicate to this psychologist] the name of her attacker;” and iv) while the “anomaly” in her eyes could have been caused by trauma, given that she had not been evaluated by a pathologist, there was no “clear and certain determination of their origin” and the word of the victim was not “enough.” 115. Based on the forensic assessment, the court agreed that Linda Loaiza López had been “sexually abused, given the characteristics of her vagina.” With regard to the rape and attempted first degree murder that Luis Carrera Almoina was charged with, the court took into account the contradiction between Linda’s testimony and the testimony of the shift supervisor of the University Hospital Clinic where she was admitted the night of her rescue, who stated during the trial that she said she had also been raped by other individuals155 The court determined that there had been serious failures in the collection of evidence, in securing the place where Linda López was rescued, in safeguarding the chain of custody of the evidence, and in photographing the scene, among other things.156 The sentence includes an analysis of how crucial these elements of the investigation are. 116. Also taking into account the content of Article 375 of the Criminal Code, the court found that the violence required for the crime of rape must “be necessary to overcome the resistance of the passive subject, and the threat should be to cause an injury sufficiently serious that the threatened person cedes to the demands of the active subject.” The Court reiterated that although it had been confirmed that the crimes of attempted first-degree murder and rape had been committed, the fact that her statements and the statements of the defendant were “totally contradictory” made it necessary to corroborate the “credibility” of the victim’s testimony.157 In that context, the court concluded that: [...] We can observe that the statements of the victim in this case to the effect that the defendant is responsible for her injuries, and on the carnal access, which allowed for the confirmation of the existence of the crime (sic) of ATTEMPTED FIRST-DEGREE MURDER and RAPE, they have not been corroborated with other evidentiary elements, as the testimony of the officials [...] who conducted the Visual Inspection of the location where the victim was found, in response to questions they were asked, stated that they had not found broken broomsticks, gags, or any instrument that could crush flesh, or pinch, or any other blunt object that would allow for establishing that it was used to cause the serious injuries to her, statements which coincide with the photographs of the scene [...] where it is indicated that the forensic evidence [of a different kind] was collected.”158 117. With regard to Linda Loaiza López’s statements to the effect that she had been kidnapped by Luis Carrera Almoina on leaving her place of residence, the court determined that this statement was “discredited” given that the examination ordered to be practiced at that place could not be carried out 155 Annex 4. Decision of the Twentieth First Instance Criminal Trial Tribunal of the Caracas Metropolitan Area Criminal Circuit. Single-judge Tribunal, November 5, 2004. Case No. 20,253, pgs. 156, 177. Annex D of the brief from the petitioners, July 14, 2009. 156 See: Annex 4. Decision of the Twentieth First Instance Trial Tribunal of the Caracas Metropolitan Area. Case No. 20.-253. November 5, 2004, pg. 313. Annex D of the brief from the petitioners, July 14, 2009. 157 Annex 4. Decision of the Twentieth First Instance Criminal Trial Tribunal of the Caracas Metropolitan Area Criminal Circuit. Single-judge Tribunal, November 5, 2004. Case No. 20,253, pg. 309. Annex D of the brief from the petitioners, July 14, 2009. 158 Annex 4. Decision of the Twentieth First Instance Criminal Trial Tribunal of the Caracas Metropolitan Area Criminal Circuit. Single-judge Tribunal, November 5, 2004. Case No. 20,253, pgs. 310-311. Annex D of the brief from the petitioners, July 14, 2009.