address of the residence where the victim lived with her sister from the time they moved to Caracas.80 The IACHR also highlights that the Prosecutor based this request on a line of investigation based on the statement of Luis Carrera Almoina to the effect that the injuries suffered by Linda Loaiza López were caused in a different place and not the apartment where she was found.81 81. Added to this, the Commission understands from the determinations made in the judgment of November 5, 2004, that the stains and the dried blood located in the apartment where Linda Loaiza López was rescued, which were not photographed or legally recorded, were also not subjected to expert forensic analysis or DNA analysis to determine to whom they belonged. The sentence also indicates that a Luminol test was not performed there.82 82. With regard to handling and securing the scene, in their testimony, the officials who were present at the time of the rescue indicated that although the prosecutor who was present coordinated that action, there was initial confusion as far as which authority would be responsible for collecting evidence, since officials from both the Municipal Police of Chacao and the Technical Police were on the scene, along with firefighters and teams from Salud Chacao and the Prosecutor’s office, and the owner of the apartment, even while the apartment was being photographed.83 Also, although the Office of the Public Prosecutor ordered the apartment remain locked, the order was not followed, the crime scene was altered, and evidence could not be gathered further at a later date at that scene.84 83. With regard to the examinations of Linda Loaiza López, on July 26, 2001, Linda Loaiza López was administered a toxicology test that came out negative “for alcohol, cocaine, marijuana, and morphine.”85 For its part, the legal medical examination aforementioned supra was carried out eight days after the rescue, on July 27, 2001, by a male officer of the Forensic Medicine Unit of the Technical Unit of the Judicial Police.86 The IACHR has no documentation to indicate that evidence was collected (such as remains of seminal liquid or by documenting the human bite marks and other injuries) upon her admission to the University Hospital or afterward for performing technical, forensic, chemical, genetic, and/or DNA tests. 84. During the initial months of her hospitalization, Linda Loaiza López was repeatedly interviewed by police officials and the 33rd Prosecutor of the Office of the Public Prosecutor to get her statement on the facts. Linda Loaiza López alleged that the Prosecutor threatened her and force her to sign a sworn statement taken while she was in the University Hospital of Caracas that he did not let her read and 80 This is also evident from the corresponding search warrants and orders to gather evidence issued by the Eighteenth Court in response to the Prosecutor’s request. See: Search Warrant No. 052-01 of the Eighteenth First Instance Oversight Court of the Caracas Metropolitan Area Judicial Criminal Circuit, October 30, 2001. Cited in the brief from the State, October 22, 2014, pg. 18. 81 The documentary evidence that the Commission has available also establishes that the Luminol test of the apartment where Linda López was living also was never carried out because the officials assigned to do it could not find the location using the information found in the judicial case file. See: Annex 4. Decision of the Twentieth First Instance Trial Tribunal of the Caracas Metropolitan Area. Case No. 20.-253. November 5, 2004. Police report on home visit No. 052*01, pgs. 274-275. Annex D of the brief from the petitioners, July 14, 2009. 82 See: Annex 4. Decision of the Twentieth First Instance Trial Tribunal of the Caracas Metropolitan Area. Case No. 20.-253. November 5, 2004, pgs. 313-315. Annex D of the brief from the petitioners, July 14, 2009. 83 See: Annex 4. Decision of the Twentieth First Instance Trial Tribunal of the Caracas Metropolitan Area. Case No. 20.-253. November 5, 2004. Statements from Juan Manuel Guzmán Rivas from the Scientific, Criminal, and Forensic Investigations Unit, pg. 137; and Giovanny José Chicco Salas, from the Municipal Police of Chacao, pg. 129. Annex D of the brief from the petitioners, July 14, 2009. 84 In his testimony, Ángel Rodríguez Torres, the owner of the apartment, stated that “[…] It really struck me that two months later they had not collected his belongings, it took a month for the prosecutor to call me and say that they had to do a visual inspection, and I told him that the things were down in an area that used to be the sauna, the police never got the mattress, the guys who came to paint took it.” Annex 4. Decision of the Twentieth First Instance Trial Tribunal of the Caracas Metropolitan Area. Case No. 20.-253. November 5, 2004, pg. 312. Annex D of the brief from the petitioners, July 14, 2009. 85 Official Letter No. 4077 of the Chacao Police Station addressed to the Forensic Toxicology Service, July 25, 2011, and test carried out by the Forensic Toxicology Division of the Technical Division of the Judicial Police, No. 9700-130-9275. Cited by the State in its brief of observations of October 22, 2014, pgs. 7 and 11. 86 Letters cited by the State in its brief of observations of October 22, 2014, pgs. 6-7.