124. Both the Office of the Public Prosecutor and the legal representative of Linda Loaiza López appealed the ruling to acquit on November 5, 2004.173 Linda Loaiza López filed a complaint over the failure to name an acting judge to the Appellate Court that heard the appeals. 174 On April 12, 2005, the Seventh Chamber of the Appellate Court of the Caracas Metropolitan Area ruled in favor of the appeals and annulled the judgment based on a lack of legal grounds and ordered a new trial. It also ordered Luis Carrera Almoina be kept in preventative detention and that the precautionary measures against his father and the employee of the University remained in place.175 6. Hearing in the second trial and judgment to convict in judicial process No. 313-05 125. As a result, a second judicial process was launched with charges from the Office of the Public Prosecutor against Luis Carrera Almoina, his father and the employee of the Universidad Nacional Abierta for the same crimes as the last trial. Likewise, the legal representative of Linda Loaiza López brought charges under private prosecution but only against Luis Carrera Almoina.176 126. The oral trial began on November 9, 2005, before the Seventh First Instance Court and, after several postponements, concluded on April 9, 2006, with the conviction of Luis Carrera Almoina for the crimes of illegitimate deprivation of liberty and serious personal injury; and acquittal for the crimes of rape and using fraud to obstruct a judicial action. He was sentenced to six years and one month in prison. The Tribunal also acquitted Luis Carrera Almoinas’s father and the employee of the University.177 On May 22, 2006, the Seventh Tribunal issued the corresponding judgment with the justifications on which it was founded. 127. The text of the judgment indicates that the majority of the evidence submitted during this second trial was largely the same as in the last one, including the evidence of the newspaper advertisement for “escort” service.178 The judgment gives no indication that measures were taken to correct the irregularities in the investigation uncovered by both the first-instance trial and the National Assembly. For its part, the defense repeated its version to the effect that Linda Loaiza López and Luis Carrera Almoina had an “intimate relationship” that began when he decided to engage the services of “the oldest profession in the world;” that he had “fallen in love with a person he could not fully have;” that she had gone voluntarily to all the public places they had visited—including in the state of Sucre; and that the problems between them worsened when Linda learned that he “was a married man.” Luis Carrera Almoina stated that Linda was in a 173 Annex 90. Appeal of the ruling of November 5, 2004, filed by the 19th Prosecutor of the Office of the Public Prosecutor. Annex X from the State’s brief, January 16, 2009. 174 See: Annex 91. Complaint filed by Linda López and her attorney, Juan Bernardo Delgado, before the chairman and other members of the Permanent Committee on Policies on the Interior, Justice, Human Rights, and Constitutional Guarantees, stamped as received on February 16, 2005. Annex “Folder No. 5, National Assembly” to the initial petition of November 12, 2007. Annex 92. Request filed by Juan Bernardo Delgado, in representation of Linda López before the president and other members of the Judicial Committee of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice, stamped as received on February 11, 2005. Annex “Folder No. 4, Supreme Tribunal of Justice” of the initial petition of November 12, 2007; and Annex 93. Request filed by Juan Bernardo Delgado, in representation of Linda López before the president and other members of the Executive Directorship of Magistrates, stamped as received on January 20, 2005. Annex “Folder No. 4, Supreme Tribunal of Justice” of the initial petition of November 12, 2007; 175 Annex 94. Decision of the Appellate Court of the Caracas Metropolitan Area Criminal Judicial Circuit. Seventh Chamber. April 12, 2005. Annex W from the State’s brief, January 16, 2009. 176 See: Annex 6. Decision of the Seventh First Instance Trial Tribunal of the Caracas Metropolitan Area, May 22, 2006. Case File No. 313-05, pg. 5. Annex E of the brief from the petitioners, July 14, 2009. 177 Annex 3. Record of the public oral trial before the Seventh First Instance Trial Tribunal of the Caracas Metropolitan Area. Case File No. 313-05. Annex Y of the brief of the petitioners of July 16, 2009; and Annex 6. Decision of the Seventh First Instance Trial Tribunal of the Caracas Metropolitan Area, May 22, 2006. Case File No. 313-05. Annex E of the brief from the petitioners, July 14, 2009. 178 Annex 3. Record of the public oral trial before the Seventh First Instance Trial Tribunal of the Caracas Metropolitan Area. Case File No. 313-05. Annex Y from the State’s brief, January 16, 2009.