241. Likewise, the information available indicates that neither upon admission to the hospital nor in subsequent days were examinations carried out to collect relevant scientific evidence—for example, to determine if any seminal liquid or other relevant genetic material remained in her body. Nor is there any indication that the examination included a detailed, in-depth physical check to adequately and meticulously document not only injuries in her genital area but in her anal area, as well as the other injuries on her body like the bite marks335 that were also evidence of the brutal cruelty and an indication of the gender-based and sexual nature of the violence against her. As indicated, this type of due diligence carried out in a timely fashion would have enabled collection of evidence of sexual violence and rape and detection of the possible presence of genetic material for eventually performing an analysis of its DNA against that of the person identified by the victim as her attacker. Actions and omissions of the corresponding authorities throughout the investigation 242. In addition to the initial above-indicated omissions, the Commission observes that there was a lack of due diligence throughout the investigation. The Commission notes that although it does not have all the procedural pieces of the domestic criminal case file, it is possible from the content of the main judicial decisions making up the body of evidence of this case to establish the investigation’s definitive steps from its initial stage. Likewise, the authorities’ actions can be reconstructed based on the witness testimony in the case cited in the decisions. 243. First is noteworthy that at the same time omissions described in the previous section were taking place, the Office of the Public Prosecutor was focusing on collecting repeated statements from Linda Loaiza López without any justification despite the significant risk of re-victimization from repeatedly describing the acts of violence against her. 244. Second, and with regard to the handling and preservation of the apartment where Linda Loaiza López was found, the Commission established that the scene was not duly protected despite an order from the Office of the Public Prosecutor ordering that it remain closed off. Also, it appeared the scene was not adequately protected while the initial forensic examinations were conducted. This is reflected in the lack of clarity as far as which authority was in charge there, as well as by the presence of a variety of people seen in the photographs and with no indication that minimal guarantees had been put in place to prevent the scene from becoming contaminated. 245. The Commission observes that a review of the evidence collected at the scene, the visual inspection and crime scene photography, and the testimony of the officials who carried out these procedures—all described in detail in the section on proven facts—reveals serious inconsistencies indicative of the negligence with which this part of the investigation was conducted. Likewise, this evidence reveals important omissions, such as the absence of measures to identify fingerprints at the scene. Also, the description of the scene found in the visual inspection report does not include all elements that would be of interest to a criminal investigation, elements whose existence was noted by officials who were on the scene. The Commission also notes that the rigorousness required for collecting evidence at the scene was absent, leading to the loss of important evidence such as the bedroom mattress. 246. Second, the Commission observes that although evidence containing traces of blood, semen, and even hair was collected, no forensic tests were conducted on it, not even DNA tests to determine whose it was. As established, the only forensic comparison examination that was ordered—though in any case it was never conducted—was a Luminol test in Linda Loaiza López’s residence to search for traces of blood to be matched against that of the victim. Neither in its briefs nor in the hearing has the State been able to explain its reasons for ordering this examination to compare results with the blood of the victim while failing to take any steps toward identifying the attacker. The Commission finds this to be the most serious omission yet, as the 335 See: United Nations, Manual on the Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Istanbul Protocol, December 2001, pgs. 80-84.