this case. There is no evidence of any other initial procedure being conducted to collect evidence. 296. The Court also notes that, on June 13, 2007, two complaints were filed in relation to the death of Félix Ordóñez Suazo (supra paras. 143 and 144); accordingly, on June 26 that year, the Ethnic Affairs Prosecutor issued an order requiring a police investigation and asking the DGIC to conduct several procedures. Initially, these procedures could not be conducted due to lack of transportation and logistical support, and only four statements were obtained, including that of the only witness in the case, Marcos Bonifacio Castillo. The DGIC also established the failure to make a thorough inspection of the scene of the crime. The Court notes that the site of the incident was not inspected and no forensic examination was made of the cartridge cases collected maintaining the corresponding chain of custody, as required by the Trujillo Prosecutor in his order requiring the expansion of the police investigation of July 16, 2007, (supra para. 145). 297. The Court has indicated that it is the actions taken by the authorities in charge of the investigation nearest to the time of an incident that usually provide the most adequate indications to facilitate the identification of probative elements in the case. Therefore, the Court finds that the omissions committed during the initial procedures could constitute a breach of the duty to investigate the facts that occurred 316 in violation of the obligation to investigate with due diligence. 298. Additionally, the Court notes that the DGIC indicated that the possible motive of the death was related to the existing land disputes, a line of investigation that was not followed up on during the proceedings, despite the land usurpation complaint filed in 2003 against the father of the presumed perpetrator of the crime. The Court notes that, despite the evidence indicating a relationship between the motive for the crime against Félix Ordóñez Suazo and the 2003 land usurpation complaint, the authorities did not investigate these incidents together or conduct an inquiry aimed at proving this relationship. 317 Although the Court has indicated that “[i]nvestigating with due diligence requires taking other murders into account and establishing some type of connection between them,” 318 it finds that this same principle entails taking into account what happened in any other offense that could help clarify the facts and determine responsibilities. This should be expedited ex officio, without the victims or their next of kin having to assume this initiative. 319 299. Regarding the irregularities and delays in the criminal proceedings, the Court notes that they can be attributed mainly to the actions of the courts. Indeed, on July 26, 2007, the Trujillo Prosecutor filed charges against David Portillo Chacon, as alleged perpetrator of the crime of the murder of Félix Ordóñez Suazo, before the Trial Court. Accordingly, on August 13, 2007, the Trial Court issued the corresponding arrest warrant. However, to date, this has not been executed, even though the Ethnic Affairs Prosecutor has requested its execution on four occasions (supra para. 147). 316 Cf. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre” v. Colombia, supra, para. 228, and Case of the Landaeta Mejías Brothers et al., supra, para. 261. 317 Cf. Case of the Barrios Family, supra, para. 253, and Case of the Landaeta Mejías Brothers et al., supra, para. 224. 318 Cf. Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”), supra, para. 368; inter alia, Case of the Barrios Family, supra, para. 253, and Case of the Landaeta Mejías Brothers et al., supra, para. 224. 319 Cf. Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”), supra, para. 368; inter alia, Case of the Barrios Family, supra, para. 253, and Case of the Landaeta Mejías Brothers et al., supra, paras. 224 to 225. 84