department to evaluate them for blood or semen stains.”72 However, some of these descriptions do not appear in the visual inspection report or the photographs of the scene, while others are not consistent with the aforementioned report.73 77. Also, Agent Guzmán Rivas stated that the bullets had not been collected on the day of the inspection.74 Also, as established in the judicial proceeding, the mattress from the bedroom in the apartment was also not taken at that time and later went missing.75 The information available in the case file also indicates there was other evidence that, despite the forensic examination, does not appear described in the visual inspection report or photographed, including the fact that fingerprints were not found because this was not considered part of the purpose of the visual inspection. 76 78. Along the same lines, the Commission notes that the ruling to acquit of November 5, 2004 — whose content will be described later on — highlighted omissions including that “[…] not all the evidence to which the police officials refer is pictured in the crime scene photographs complementing Visual Inspection No. 48,” highlighting for example that according to this testimony, “the walls of the room and the whole apartment were covered in blood in semen, however the visual inspection and the photographs taken there do not reflect this.” Likewise, “the green bottles that appeared in the photographs” were not “described in any way.”77 79. As far as the Luminol test, the State indicated in the hearing before the IACHR that it was carried out but did not provide more details. Also, in its brief of observations on the merits, the State disputed that the Luminol test was not performed, pointing to the request made on October 30, 2001, by the Eighteenth First Instance Oversight Court.78 The Commission notes that the list of steps provided by the State in its brief also includes a request from the 33rd Prosecutor dated October 29, 2001, to the Eighteenth Court for a search warrant for the property located on Avenida Panteón, Residencias Natali, Parroquia San José, Caracas, and the performance of a Luminol test.79 80. Although the State indicates that this request was for the place where Linda López was rescued, the documentary evidence found in the case file and the partially-cited text of the request to the prosecutor indicate that the address is not the same as the one for the apartment where Linda Loaiza López was found. On the contrary, the address in question was identified during the judicial proceeding as the 72 Annex 4. Decision of the Twentieth First Instance Trial Tribunal of the Caracas Metropolitan Area. Case No. 20.-253. November 5, 2004. Statement of Officer Manuel Guzmán Rivas from the Scientific, Criminal, and Forensic Investigations Unit, pgs. 134135. Annex D of the brief from the petitioners, July 14, 2009. 73 Annex 4. Decision of the Twentieth First Instance Trial Tribunal of the Caracas Metropolitan Area. Case No. 20.-253. November 5, 2004, pg. 147. Annex D of the brief from the petitioners, July 14, 2009. 74 Annex 4. Decision of the Twentieth First Instance Trial Tribunal of the Caracas Metropolitan Area. Case No. 20.-253. November 5, 2004. Statement of Agent Juan Manuel Guzmán Rivas from the Scientific, Criminal, and Forensic Investigations Unit, pg. 138. Annex D of the brief from the petitioners, July 14, 2009. 75 Annex 4. Decision of the Twentieth First Instance Trial Tribunal of the Caracas Metropolitan Area. Case No. 20.-253. November 5, 2004. Statement of Agent Juan Manuel Guzmán Rivas from the Scientific, Criminal, and Forensic Investigations Unit, pg. 312. Annex D of the brief from the petitioners, July 14, 2009. 76 See: Annex 6. Decision of the Seventh First Instance Trial Tribunal of the Caracas Metropolitan Area. Case File No. 313-05. May 22, 2006. Statement of Agent Gerardo Antonio Paiva Serrano, Visual Inspections Division, pgs. 121-122. Annex E of the brief from the petitioners, July 14, 2009. 77 Annex 4. Decision of the Twentieth First Instance Trial Tribunal of the Caracas Metropolitan Area. Case No. 20.-253. November 5, 2004, pg. 147. Annex D of the brief from the petitioners, July 14, 2009. 78 Official Letter No. 1967 of October 30, 2001, of the Eighteenth First Instance Oversight Court of the Caracas Metropolitan Area, addressed to the Chief of Police of Chacao, Microanalysis Department of the Directorate of Criminal Investigations of the Technical Unit of the Judicial Police. Cited in the brief from the State, October 22, 2014, pg. 30. 79 Official Letter No. AMC-F33-964-2001 October 29, 2001, of the 33rd Office of the Public Prosecutor, Dr. Capaya Rodríguez, addressed to the Eighteenth First Instance Oversight Court of the Caracas Metropolitan Area Judicial Criminal Circuit. Cited in the brief from the State, October 22, 2014, pg. 17.