“sad situation” because her sister forced her “to work in prostitution,” that they smoked marijuana and she took cocaine, and “she knew where to find it.”179 128. Linda Loaiza López chose not to testify during the trial.180 At the conclusion of the trial hearing, she stated that she stands by the charges brought by the Office of the Public Prosecutor and her attorney and was “the only witness to what the defendant did, [she] directly accused him as the sole perpetrator of the violations [she] suffered at his hands, of the 3-month deprivation of liberty, of the various rapes, of the abuse, all of which entail torture.”181 129. As far as the factual and legal justifications for the decision, the Tribunal changed the legal description of the crime from attempted first-degree murder to serious personal injury, as established in Article 416 of the Criminal Code in force at the time.182 The decision also takes into account a variety of statements from forensic doctors and psychiatrists indicating that Luis Carrera Almoina had traits that made him prone to violence. Based on this, the Tribunal concluded that Luis Carrera Almoina was responsible “insofar as the injuries suffered by the victim were injuries intended to cause her damage without causing her death.”183 130. In its analysis of the crime of illegitimate deprivation of liberty, the Tribunal found that Linda Loaiza López “had been locked in, with no chance to freely leave the apartment where she was found because she did not have keys, [...] which were in the possession of [the defendant].” It also took into account that Luis Carrera Almoina had been identified as the perpetrator of these facts and there were “signs that [she] had been tied up.”184 131. With regard to the crime of rape, the Tribunal again took into account the testimony of the forensic experts and concluded that it only confirmed the existence of the injuries identified in the gynecological exams without demonstrating who was responsible for them. It thus found that it was not possible to assign criminal responsibility to the defendant as “the commission of this crime was not corroborated by witnesses or experts [and there was] no other medical or legal basis for presuming [...] that [it] was committed.”185 132. Finally, the Tribunal acquitted the other defendants.186 133. The judgment of May 22, 2006, was appealed by the Office of the Public Prosecutor and the attorney of Linda Loaiza López. On December 19, 2006, the Sixth Chamber of the Appellate Court of the Caracas Metropolitan Area dismissed the appeals. On March 16, 2007, the attorney of Linda Loaiza López filed 179 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. 180 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, pg. 51. Annex Y from the State’s brief, January 16, 2009. 181 Annex 6. Decision of the Seventh First Instance Trial Tribunal of the Caracas Metropolitan Area, May 22, 2006. Case File No. 313-05, pg. 159. Annex E of the brief from the petitioners, July 14, 2009. 182 Annex 6. Decision of the Seventh First Instance Trial Tribunal of the Caracas Metropolitan Area, May 22, 2006. Case File No. 313-05, pg. 166. Annex E of the brief from the petitioners, July 14, 2009. 183 Annex 6. Decision of the Seventh First Instance Trial Tribunal of the Caracas Metropolitan Area, May 22, 2006. Case File No. 313-05, pages 169 and 170. Annex E of the brief from the petitioners, July 14, 2009. 184 Annex 6. Decision of the Seventh First Instance Trial Tribunal of the Caracas Metropolitan Area, May 22, 2006. Case File No. 313-05, pg. 172. Annex E of the brief from the petitioners, July 14, 2009. 185 Annex 6. Decision of the Seventh First Instance Trial Tribunal of the Caracas Metropolitan Area, May 22, 2006. Case File No. 313-05, pg. 174. Annex E of the brief from the petitioners, July 14, 2009. 186 Annex 6. Decision of the Seventh First Instance Trial Tribunal of the Caracas Metropolitan Area, May 22, 2006. Case File No. 313-05, pgs. 175-176, 179. Annex E of the brief from the petitioners, July 14, 2009.