response from government authorities in response to disappearance reports to adequately prevent violence against women.230 This includes performing an exhaustive search. It also means that the officials responsible for receiving the reports must have the capacity and sensitivity to understand the gravity of the phenomenon of violence against women and the willingness to take immediate action.231 In particular, it is crucial that prompt and immediate action be taken by prosecutorial and judicial authorities to order timely and necessary measures aimed at determining the whereabouts of the victim or the place where the victim might be found deprived of liberty.232 Also, adequate procedures must be in place for these reports that include launching an effective investigation within hours. Authorities must assume that the disappeared person is deprived of liberty and still alive until any uncertainty about what took place has been eliminated.233 This is what the Court has found in cases in which deprivations of liberty of the victims were committed by non-State actors. 162. The IACHR has found that when, in response to complaints of violence against women victims who are reported disappeared, the authorities do not launch a search immediately, discredit the victim, blame her, and thus consider her not deserving of State action to locate and protect her (all of which result consciously or unconsciously from gender stereotypes), a grave violation has been committed that delays or prevents. effective State response.234 1.1.2. Application of the above obligations to the facts of the case 163. Based on the aforementioned standards, the Commission will analyze whether in this case, the Venezuelan State had a duty to respond and whether such obligation was properly fulfilled, taking into account whether: i) Linda Loaiza López faced a situation of real and imminent risk; ii) the State was or should have been aware of that situation of risk; and iii) the State acted with the due diligence to reasonably prevent that risk from happening. 164. With regard to the first point, the Commission understands that from the moment of the disappearance of Linda Loaiza López, she was in a situation of real and imminent risk. 165. On the second point, Ana Secilia López has stated that after Linda Loaiza López did not return home and after receiving an anonymous phone call saying that her sister would not be back, she went to the local police to file a report. She stated that she also reported the information of the call she had received and the identification of the person to which she believed that phone number belonged. In her testimony, however, she indicated that the officials did not record the complaint, telling her that she had to wait because it was probably a “domestic problem.” The petitioners stated that Ana Secilia López tried to file the report six more times and that it was finally taken, but as a death threat against her and not connected with Linda Loaiza López’s disappearance. During the first oral trial, Ana Secilia López also stated that she had turned over a copy of the complaint to be included in the criminal case file. 166. The Commission finds that the testimony of Ana Secilia López and the pleadings of the petitioners are consistent with the context described in this report with regard to the insufficient action taken by the authorities in charge of receiving reports and investigating these types of cases. As established in the proven facts, international and nongovernmental organizations have repeatedly called for removal of the 230 Inter-American Court. Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 16, 2009. Series C No. 205, para. 285. 231 Inter-American Court. Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 16, 2009. Series C No. 205, para. 285. 232 Inter-American Court. Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 16, 2009. Series C No. 205, para. 283. 233 Inter-American Court. Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 16, 2009. Series C No. 205, para. 283. 234 para. 135. IACHR, Access to Justice for women who are Victims of Violence in the Americas, OEA/Ser. L/V/II. doc.68. January 20, 2007,