area was searched to look for footprints or traces of tire marks that could be used as clues or evidence of what happened. It also underlines that neither the scene of the crime nor the victim’s corpse were photographed for the respective records. Regarding the autopsy, the Court notes that this does not show that the corpse had been examined thoroughly. In fact, the Court notes that the autopsy: (1) does not mention whether the alleged victim’s clothing was examined; (ii) does not describe in detail each of the injuries found or their size; (iii) does not determine the possible time of death, or (iv) establish whether it was natural death, accidental death, suicide or homicide. In this regard, the Court recalls that omissions in these initial procedures condition or limit the subsequent investigations,119 and constitute failure to comply with the obligation to investigate with due diligence. B.1.c Omissions in following up on logical lines of investigation and in gathering evidence 77. This Court has established that, to ensure the effectiveness of the investigation of human rights violations, omissions in the gathering of evidence and in following up on logical lines of investigation must be avoided.120 When the facts relate to a violent death, the investigation must be conducted in a way that ensures due analysis of all hypotheses concerning the perpetrators that arise from it.121 78. Similarly, it should be recalled that it is not incumbent on the Court to analyze the hypotheses concerning the perpetrators developed during the investigation of the events and, consequently, to determine individual responsibilities the definition of which corresponds to the domestic criminal courts. Rather, it must assess the acts or omissions of state agents based on the evidence presented by the parties,122 and verify whether or not the steps taken in the domestic sphere violated the international obligations of the State derived from Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention.123 Accordingly, to determine whether a State has complied with its obligation to investigate everyone who may be criminally responsible, this Court has indicated that it is necessary to analyze: (i) the existence of indications of the participation of those presumably responsible, and (ii) whether the investigation of those indications was diligent or negligent.124 79. In this case, the Court notes that, during the investigation, the Public Prosecution Service indicated that there were indications that those possibly responsible were the Korean men Cf. Case of González Medina and family members v. Dominican Republic. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 27, 2012. Series C No. 240, para. 219, and Case of Women Victims of Sexual Torture in Atenco v. Mexico. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 28, 2018. Series C No. 371, para. 285. 119 Cf. Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters v. El Salvador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 1, 2005. Series C No. 120, paras. 88 and 105, and Case of Ruiz Fuentes et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 10, 2019. Series C No. 384, para. 179. 120 Cf. Case of Pacheco León et al. v. Honduras. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 15, 2017. Series C No. 342, para. 89, and Case of Villaseñor Velarde et al. v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 5, 2019. Series C No. 374, para. 115. 121 Cf. Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 10, 2007. Series C No. 167, para. 87, and Case of Women Victims of Sexual Torture in Atenco v. Mexico. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 28, 2018. Series C No. 371, para. 294. 122 Cf. Case of Nogueira de Carvalho et al. v. Brazil. Preliminary objections and Merits. Judgment of November 28, 2006. Series C No. 161, para. 80, and Case of Women Victims of Sexual Torture in Atenco v. Mexico. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 28, 2018. Series C No. 371, para. 294. 123 Cf. Case of Pacheco León et al. v. Honduras. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 15, 2017. Series C No. 342, para. 94, and Case of Women Victims of Sexual Torture in Atenco v. Mexico. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 28, 2018. Series C No. 371, para. 292. 124 21