prejudices that have consequences for the classification of the offense and even establish mitigating circumstances based on the personal circumstances of the victim: for example, if she is a “prostitute,” “single,” “widow,” or an “honest” woman. 278. These laws comprise the legal framework in which the investigation and criminal processes in this case took place. The Commission finds that independent of the criminal offense applied in the end, the way in which crimes related to sexual violence or rape were governed by law was inappropriate and established certain elements that could affect the investigation as indeed it was affected, with emphasis on aspects that were not only irrelevant but in violation of victim’s privacy, autonomy, and dignity. This situation is often linked to diversion of investigations and failure to collect truly relevant evidence, including failure to consider all existing clues. As established in the relevant section on the duty to investigate with due diligence, this is effectively what happened in this case. 279. Specifically, the Commission observes that the failure of the domestic court processes to recognize the sexual violence suffered by Linda Loaiza López and the absence of criminal responsibility for that violence was not only due to the aforementioned omissions but also took place in a legal context favoring the use of discriminatory stereotypes to her detriment. This legal framework had concrete implications in this case, particularly in the fact that a significant portion of the trial revolved around the allegations of sex work made by the defense of Mr. Carrera Almoina and that steps were even taken to collect evidence on the alleged newspaper advertisement that according to the defense proved such activities, even while at the same time, the same authorities failed to collect such essential evidence as the evidence already mentioned in this report, among which the failures to test the DNA and the semen that were found stand out. 3.2.3. On the way in which the criminal investigation and process were conducted 280. From its review of the available case file, the Commission has already established in this report that the lines of investigation and collection of evidence mainly followed the version of the facts given by Mr. Carrera Almoina. In contrast, no specific steps were taken to follow up on and, where applicable, corroborate the testimony of Linda Loaiza López. Despite this situation, the Commission highlights that the reasoning of the judicial decisions did not assign criminal responsibility for the facts of violence and sexual violence due to the lack of legal evidence, witnesses, and the impossibility of confirming the offense using other evidence outside the testimony of Linda Loaiza López. In this sense, although the victim’s testimony was given practically zero probative weight, the verification of negligence during the investigative stage was not complemented by an analysis of other relevant evidence presented during the two oral trials. However, the defense’s requests for the gathering of evidence were indeed granted. 281. Additionally, the Commission highlights the following elements as indicative of the slim credibility granted to the testimony of the victim in contrast to the credibility granted to the statements of the defense of Mr. Carrera Almoina: a. The evaluation of the supervisory Tribunal to grant a measure in lieu of deprivation of liberty for the accused contained no considerations on the procedural merits of this type of measure; rather, the precautionary measure was based on a subjective assessment related with the argument that it was unusual for a person accused of these types of crimes to appear voluntarily for the proceedings. b. The reasoning based on which the judgments of November 5, 2004, and May 22, 2006, were made does not make reference to the content of the medical examinations performed on Linda Loaiza López indicating the nature of the assaults she suffered and their physical and psychological impact. The decisions do not take into account that the findings of these expert examinations supported the severity of the injuries as described by the victim and even, although insufficiently, the existence of sexual violence. On the contrary, the judgment of May 22, 2006, did take into account the content of the expert psychiatric examinations performed on Mr. Luis Carrera Almoina, including the