they were offensive to her as the victim in this proceeding. However, the judge found that nothing “had been said to offend the victim” and that the right of the defense to make his arguments should be respected. The attorney for the defense stated that what had happened was a “consensual [...] meeting between the quoteunquote worker and [her] client and there was space for them to fall in love [... and that’s how] a relationship [began].” The defense stated the following: [...] if we delve a little further into the start of this situation, we ask ourselves, who is LINDA LOAIZA LOPEZ SOTO? Well, according to the information provided and documented, [...] she is a humble young woman from a village [in the] State of Mérida, a young woman who [...] comes to Caracas with the specific desire to move forward [...] but she never really found these marvelous opportunities that she was dreaming of [...] what she did find was a kind of job that I’m not going to specifically describe, but we all know is the oldest profession in the world, so LINDA LOAIZA LÓPEZ comes in contact with [Carrera Almoina], a person who is to a certain extent cultured, has a certain standing in society, we’re not going to say that he is rich man, but he is a man who at that time had certain financial means that enabled him certain indulgences, for example good restaurants, nice meals, a decent vehicle, [...] [Carrera Almoina] was dazzling for LINDA LOAIZA LOPEZ SOTO and made her fall in love and on [April 27, 2001], she gives him some wallet-sized photos where on one of them she writes ‘Here’s something simple I’m giving you with much love and tenderness and of great value’ [... after] a month and several days [from the first encounter] they started going out, to put it one way, and now LINDA LOAIZA LOPEZ SOTO felt like she lucked out, going from Tucaní, a humble village [...] to this great metropolis and getting an extraordinary man, but what really happens with the job LINDA LOAIZA LOPEZ SOTO is doing is that [Carrera Almoina] had to accept her whim to continue doing that job [...] 152 111. The defense argued that the “romantic problems” started when he learned of her family problems, especially the problems with her sister, Ana Secilia López, who she did not get along with, and because Linda Loaiza López was coming home beaten up without telling him why and “because she was so stubborn” she did not let him help her. Luis Carrera Almoina also stated that at some of their encounters she was “on drugs” and “enraged” because she had also fought with another man who “she had also taken a piece out of.” He also stated that the facts of July 19, 2001, took place while Linda Loaiza López was “both mentally and emotionally disfigured because […] her partner was no longer going to be her partner,” and after arguing with Luis Carrera Almoina, she had decided to appear at the window of the apartment where she was rescued “in the conditions that [according to the defense have not been demonstrated]. Also, with regard to the facts of sexual violence, he reiterated that the relations were always consensual and questioned whether insertion of “bottles [...] in the anus” or “hands in the vagina” could really be possible in “such an intimate and delicate space.”153 112. In his testimony, Luis Carrera Almoina answered the Tribunal’s questions on the supposed “work” Linda Loaiza López did with the escort service, her reaction when Luis Carrera Almoina decided to end the “relationship,” and, among other things, asked him if she ever attacked him, to which he responded that “without realizing it, [Linda] hit [him].”154 113. The Commission highlights certain aspects of the analysis used by the Twentieth Court both in assessing the evidence, testimony, and expert witness testimony and in its reasoning in acquitting the defendant. 152 Annex 4. Decision of the Twentieth First Instance Criminal Trial Tribunal of the Caracas Metropolitan Area Criminal Circuit. Single-judge tribunal, November 5, 2004. Case No. 20,253. Annex D of the brief from the petitioners, July 14, 2009. 153 Annex 4. Decision of the Twentieth First Instance Criminal Trial Tribunal of the Caracas Metropolitan Area Criminal Circuit. Single-judge Tribunal, November 5, 2004. Case No. 20,253. Annex D of the brief from the petitioners, July 14, 2009. 154 Annex 4. Decision of the Twentieth First Instance Criminal Trial Tribunal of the Caracas Metropolitan Area Criminal Circuit. Single-judge Tribunal, November 5, 2004. Case No. 20,253, pgs. 70, 90-91. Annex D of the brief from the petitioners, July 14, 2009.