because the officials could not locate it.159 As far as the omissions of failing to perform blood tests to compare the victim’s blood with that of the defendant and failing to analyze the semen found in the apartment, the court found that these “physical evidence” was of “vital importance to resolve this case,” in light of which fact it found that “on failure to demonstrate that the victim, LINDA LOAIZA LÓPEZ SOTO, was beaten while in the apartment where she was found, the defendant’s statement to the effect that the injuries were caused in a different place and by other individuals must be accepted [...].”160 118. The IACHR also highlights that the analysis used by the Twentieth Court to confirm the truth of Luis Carrera Almoina’s version of the facts revolved around the fact that some of the testimony supported his claim that they were in a romantic relationship.161 119. As far as the information contained in the newspaper advertisement submitted as complementary evidence by the legal counsel of the defendant, the court dismissed the Office of the Public Prosecutor’s objection and found that the evidence was “useful, pertinent, and necessary” because it contained a telephone number that established the alleged link between the López Soto sisters and “the individuals who published the ad” and “to which the victim made reference on the day [she and the defendant] met each other.” The sentence indicates that during the trial, it was demonstrated that “the day the defendant said he met Linda” he received a phone call from the phone number appearing in the advertisement and that calls had also been made to Ana Secilia and vice-versa.162 Based on that evidence, the court also found that Linda Loaiza López’s testimony on how she had been kidnapped by the defendant was discredited and that Luis Carrera Almoina’s version was “plausible” insofar as its claim that the attacks on Linda Loaiza López “were caused by third part[ies].” It also found that Ana Secilia López committed the crime of perjury given that during the trial, “she said she did not know the reason for these calls [...] which is hard to believe [... given] the testimony of the defendant to the effect that the sisters [and these persons had] a close relationship.”163 120. Finally, with regard to the crime of illegitimate deprivation of liberty with which Luis Carrera Almoina was charged, the Twentieth Court took into account the testimony of the witnesses (mostly those put forward by the defense) confirming that Linda Loaiza López had appeared in public places in the company of the defendant. Based on this, it found the victim’s claims “by all lights implausible... for two clear reasons: First, because if she had been in this situation, she had a number of opportunities to get help from third parties [...] and second, because it would be illogical for the perpetrator of this type of crime to make deposits in the bank account of the victim’s father, even less so for relatives of the victim to communicate with relatives of the perpetrator of the crime [...] without informing the police authorities of this alleged deprivation of liberty [...].”164 With regard to the charge of the crime of torture, the decision found that it could not be applied in this case when taking into account how that crime was defined in the Rome Statute in relation to crimes against humanity.165 159 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. 275. Annex D of the brief from the petitioners, July 14, 2009. 160 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. 315. Annex D of the brief from the petitioners, July 14, 2009. 161 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. 219 and 267-273. Annex D of the brief from the petitioners, July 14, 2009. 162 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. 258. Annex D of the brief from the petitioners, July 14, 2009. 163 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. 251, 398. Annex D of the brief from the petitioners, July 14, 2009. 164 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. 319-320. Annex D of the brief from the petitioners, July 14, 2009. 165 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. 325-326. Annex D of the brief from the petitioners, July 14, 2009.