121. Finally, in response to the request of the defense to investigate whether the “prostitution ring” to which Linda Loaiza López and her sister supposedly belong existed, the Twentieth Court urged the Office of the Public Prosecutor to open the corresponding criminal inquiry.166The IACHR does not have information as to the result of this investigation. 5. Actions following the sentence of November 5, 2004, and appeals process 122. Between October 25 and 27, 2004, the legal representation of Linda Loaiza López filed a number of complaints with the Judicial Committee of the TSJ, the Office of the Attorney General, and the Office of the Ombudsperson against the judge who acquitted the defendant, alleging a variety of irregularities.167 On November 1, 2004, the 19th and 30th Prosecutors of the Office of the Public Prosecutor filed a complaint against the aforementioned judge before the General Inspectorate of Tribunals alleging her lack of impartiality in the trial.168 On June 21, 2005, the Inspectorate decided not to press charges. This decision was upheld following an appeal from Linda Loaiza López.169 123. On November 26, 2004, the National Assembly issued a press release to “repudiate the judgment against Linda Loaiza.”170 On February 25, 2005 the National Assembly issued a final report as a result of an investigation carried out by a special commission created on October 6, 2004, to investigate the irregularities present in the judicial proceeding.171 Among the irregularities, it highlights the omissions of the Office of the Public Prosecutor during the preparatory phase, including the failure to bring charges by the legal deadline, the failure to order CICPC to perform the “blood comparison,” and the failure to investigate evidence of the existence of an alleged “prostitution ring.” The report concludes that the judgement of November 5, 2004, was legal because the judge based it on the pleadings and evidence from the process, applying logical and reasonable evaluation and procedure and abiding by the principle of autonomy and judicial independence. Among its recommendations, the Special Committee urged the Office of the Attorney General to take over the inquiry into the actions of the officials that were involved in the case.172 166 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. Annex D of the brief from the petitioners, July 14, 2009. 167 Annex 81. Complaint filed by Juan Bernardo Delgado, in representation of Linda López, before the Judicial Committee of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice, stamped as received on October 25, 2004. Annex “Folder No. 4, Supreme Tribunal of Justice” of the initial petition of November 12, 2007; Annex 82. Complaint filed by Juan Bernardo Delgado, in representation of Linda López before the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic, stamped as received on October 25, 2004. Annex “Folder No. 1, Office of the Attorney General” to the initial petition of November 12, 2007; See: Annex 83. Record of the Office of the Ombudsman Delegate to the Caracas Metropolitan Area, the October 27, 2004. Annex “Folder No. 2, Office of the Ombudsman” to the initial petition of November 12, 2007, and Annex 84. Record of appearance of Linda López before the Office of the Ombudsman Delegate to the Caracas Metropolitan Area, the October 27, 2004. Annex G3 of the brief from the petitioners, July 14, 2009. 168 See: Annex 85. Decision of the General Inspectorate of Tribunals of June 21, 2005. Annex “Folder No. 3, Inspectorate of Tribunals” to the initial petition of November 12, 2007. 169 Annex 85. Decision of the General Inspectorate of Tribunals of June 21, 2005. Annex “Folder No. 3, Inspectorate of Tribunals” to the initial petition of November 12, 2007. 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. Annex 86. Appeal filed by Juan Bernardo Delgado in his capacity as Linda López’s legal representative before the President of the Disciplinary Chamber of the General Inspectorate of Tribunals, stamped as received on November 13, 2006. Annex “Folder No. 3, Inspectorate of Tribunals” to the initial petition of November 12, 2007, and Annex 87. Decision of the Judicial System Operational and Restructuring Commission of November 8, 2007. Case File No. A-008-2007. Annex G4 of the brief from the petitioners, July 14, 2009. 170 Annex 88. Press release of the National Assembly. “AN repudia sentencia contra Linda Loaiza.” Annex “03 Asamblea Nacional AN Comunicado Prensa Repudio Sentencia de LL” of the brief from the petitioners, June 20, 2014. Other groups also issued press releases rejecting the content off the decision. See: Annex 89. Annex “04 Comunicados públicos” of the brief from the petitioners, June 20, 2014; 171 Annex 44. Final report of the joint team of parliamentarians established to carry out the mandate of the Plenary of the National Assembly of the agreement related to the court decision made in the case of citizen Linda López Soto, pg. 4. February 25, 2005. Annex “Folder No. 5, National Assembly” to the initial petition of November 12, 2007. 172 Final report of the joint team of parliamentarians established to carry out the mandate of the Plenary of the National Assembly of the agreement related to the court decision made in the case of citizen Linda López Soto, pgs. 31-34. February 25, 2005. Annex “Folder No. 5, National Assembly” to the initial petition of November 12, 2007.