examination performed by his personal physician describing the anxiety and depression he suffered due to the death of his mother. c. The decisions used an analytical methodology that pitted the victim’s word against that of the attacker rather than a comprehensive analysis from a gender perspective that took into account the other elements contained in the judicial case file, including the evidence that tended to corroborate Linda Loaiza López’s testimony. For example, during both oral trials, issues were debated such as whether a forearm could actually enter a vagina. Forensic medical experts were questioned as to whether the trauma identified could have been consensual or not, and on if the vaginal tear could have been caused by a penis or another object. d. The supplementary evidence put forward by the defense on the victim’s alleged sex work and on the romantic relationship she had allegedly had with Mr. Carrera Almoina were used to discredit Linda Loaiza López’s testimony and attribute certain prior sexual conduct to her that, pursuant to the applicable criminal statute itself, made her less valuable or implicitly deserving of her assault. This evidence was not only not relevant but constituted a form of stigmatization and discrimination, as well as interference in the victim’s private life In addition, this evidence was used to order a case file opened to investigate Linda Loaiza and Ana Secilia López’s alleged connection to a prostitution ring, which constituted an additional element of re-victimization. The Commission finds it especially concerning that, to this day, and according to reports from the petitioners, it is still not certain whether that case file was actually opened by the Office of the Public Prosecutor and what its current status might be. The State has not provided information on this. e. During the testimony given in the oral trials, the judicial authorities permitted the victim to be constantly questioned and stigmatized, both by the defendants’ defense and by the very person she had identified as her attacker. The IACHR finds that although the right to defense is an essential aspect of judicial guarantees, it cannot be to the detriment of the due protection that the State must provide to the victims of facts of this nature. In this sense, the allowance of certain humiliating, rude, and evidently discriminatory expressions against the victim during the trials makes clear the defenselessness of Linda Loaiza López and the situation of re-victimization she faced throughout the judicial processes. 3.2.4. Conclusion 282. Based on the considerations put forth in this section, the Commission concludes that Linda Loaiza López did not enjoy equal protection of access to justice. On the contrary, Linda Loaiza López did not receive care and treatment appropriate to her status as the victim of violence against women, including sexual violence and rape, from the moment she was rescued and subsequently. Likewise, the grave facts of violence she suffered were investigated and brought to trial in a legal framework that was discriminatory and therefore not compatible with the American Convention for the reasons described. In addition, the Commission has already described the almost total lack of merit granted Linda Loaiza López’s testimony, as well as the various indications of bias with regard to following up lines of investigation and collecting and weighing evidence. Not only did all these situations affect her right to access to justice, but they constituted forms of additional re-victimization that affected both her privacy and dignity, as well as her psychological and moral integrity. 283. Consequently, the Commission concludes that the Venezuelan State is responsible for the violations of the rights established in articles 5(1), 8(1), 11, 24, and 25 of the American Convention with regard to articles 1(1) and 2 of that instrument; as well as the violation of Article 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará, all to the detriment of Linda Loaiza López.