State explained its actions by indicating that these tests were either never requested or the necessary instruments to carry them out were not available. 247. Third, an analysis of the entirety of the investigation finds that the investigation was not conducted based on the information and specific details provided by the victim, despite the fact that, as indicated, Linda Loaiza López testified on multiple occasions, in detail and consistently. For example, there was no investigation into the alleged existence of other criminal case files against the attacker for cases of violence against women. Also, no follow-up was conducted in the form of collecting evidence on the stay the victim described in the hotel in the state of Sucre. This same omission was identified in conjunction with Linda Loaiza López’s stay with her attacker in a hotel in the city of Caracas for a number of days. On this latter point, no steps were taken to establish what happened based on relevant forensic evidence: for example, the sheets from the room that the victim stated were stained with blood. Likewise, the case file gives no indication that substantive steps were ordered taken or potential evidence collected at the other scene in the state of Sucre where the victim stated she had stayed. 248. The IACHR notes that no lines of investigation were open into possible cover-ups by the father of the alleged attacker and the use of State property for such purpose. This determination is specifically related to the incidents described by Linda Loaiza López when she was taken in a vehicle together with Luis Carrera Almoina’s father (at the time the rector of a public university) and his driver to a public event at the Teresa Carreño Theater. As established in the section on the facts, the judicial process launched against these persons had to do with Luis Carrera Almoina’s escape from house arrest but not the other facts alleged by Linda Loaiza López. 249. Also, as was established, although a report was recorded over threats to Ana Secilia López instead of the report of her sister’s disappearance, at least in this case file there is no indication that it was included in the investigation into the facts committed against Linda Loaiza López. 250. The Commission observes that the Office of the Public Prosecutor did perform detailed follow-up and ordered a number of steps be taken to look into the hypothesis put forward by the alleged attacker. 251. Specifically with regard to the Luminol test, the Commission established that it was ordered by the Office of the Public Prosecutor to be conducted at the residence of Linda Loaiza López and her sister, not at the apartment where she was rescued. The reason for this request was the version provided by Luis Carrera Almoina to the effect that the victim’s injuries were caused somewhere else and not in the apartment where she was found. In addition, it was established that additional collection and evaluation of complementary evidence as requested by the defense of the accused was also ordered, including evidence on the newspaper advertisement and the phone calls to Ana Secilia’s cellular phone. A forensic handwriting analysis was also ordered of several notes that Linda Loaiza López said she wrote in response to coercion and threats but that the accused said were “love letters” she had written him. 252. The Commission notes that pursuant to the principle of presumption of innocence, authorities are indeed responsible to investigate the possible lines of investigation suggested by the defense of a person being criminally prosecuted Nevertheless, what the Commission found after a comprehensive review of the available case file is a clear contrast between failure to collect basic evidence in a case such as this one and collection of evidence based on the defense’s version of the story. The Commission finds that Linda Loaiza López’s narrative was treated differently than that of Mr. Carrera Almoina in terms of follow-up through lines of investigation. Failure to investigate alleged irregularities throughout the investigation and criminal process, as well as the threats and harassment reported by Linda Loaiza López and her family 253. The case file before the Commission includes abundant documentary evidence on all the complaints filed by Linda Loaiza López and her attorney, before various bodies alleging multiple irregularities during the judicial processes. According to the information available in the case file, the Commission observes