63. Along the same lines, in order to ensure due diligence in the conduct of a thorough and impartial investigation into a death under suspicious circumstances that involves agents of the State, the Commission takes note of some of the standards in the Minnesota Protocol, an instrument that establishes some of the minimum steps to take in an investigation. Such steps include: identification of the victim; the collection and preservation of evidence related to the death to assist in the potential prosecution of those responsible; the identification of possible witnesses and the taking of their statements related to the death; the determination of the cause, manner, place, and time of death, as well as any pattern or practice that may have led to the death; the distinction between natural death, suicide, and homicide; the identification and arrest of the person or persons involved in the death; and the presentation of the alleged perpetrators before a competent court established by law.74 As these standards state, “When necessary, and subject to the consent of the individual(s) concerned, investigators should take steps to protect an interviewee and others from illtreatment or intimidation as a consequence of providing information.”75 64. The Commission has stated that the duty to provide grounds for a decision is a corollary of due process guarantees, not only in terms of the very legitimacy of the decision and the defense of the person accused, but also in terms of the expectation of access to justice of victims whose rights have been violated. Moreover, the duty to provide grounds for decisions is a guarantee connected with the proper administration of justice; it also shows that the parties have been heard.76 In the same vein, the Inter-American Court has established that the duty to provide grounds is one of the “due guarantees” included in Article 8.1 to safeguard the right to due process.77 In this regard, the grounds “are the exteriorization of the reasoned justification that allows a conclusion to be reached” and include an exposition of the rationale that led the judge to adopt a decision. 65. The Court has had the opportunity to address the subject of juries and has established that while intimate conviction is not an arbitrary criterion for reaching a verdict, the entire criminal proceeding should be examined to see whether it offered safeguards against arbitrariness that allow the reasons for the verdict to be understood, not only for the defendant but also for the victim or the accuser. In this sense, “the need for the defendant and the victim of the crime or the accusing party to understand the reasons for the decision of guilt or innocence adopted by the jury in its verdict remains in full force as a guarantee against arbitrariness.”78 What is essential in these cases for the Court is to determine whether the proceedings in their entirety offer sufficient guarantees against arbitrariness, so that the parties can understand the result of the process as a rational result of the evidence.79 66. Finally, the Inter-American Court has indicated that the right to due process of law must be ensured to migrants without discrimination of any kind, irrespective of their migration status. This right must be genuine and not merely formal.80 In its Advisory Opinion 18/03, the Inter-American Court established that migrants are in a vulnerable situation as subjects of human rights; they are in an individual situation of absence or difference of power with regard to non-migrants (nationals or residents).81 This implies that in some cases States must take affirmative action to reverse or change discriminatory situations.82 2. Analysis of the case 67. In this case, the investigation began after the events of April 14, 1996, and ended on February 24, 1997, with a verdict and acquittal in sole instance. With respect to the gathering of evidence in this case, I/A Court H.R. Case of Ortiz Hernández et al. v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 22, 2017. Series C No. 338, para. 161. 75 UN. The Minnesota Protocol on the Investigation of Potentially Unlawful Death (2016), Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, New York/Geneva, 2017, para. 86. 76 I/A Court H.R. Case of V.R.P., V.P.C. et al. v. Nicaragua, March 8, 2018, para. 210. 77 I/A Court H.R. Case of V.R.P., V.P.C. et al. v. Nicaragua, March 8, 2018, para. 271. 78 I/A Court H.R. Case of V.R.P., V.P.C. et al. v. Nicaragua, March 8, 2018, para. 263. 79 I/A Court H.R. Case of V.R.P., V.P.C. et al. v. Nicaragua, March 8, 2018, para. 266. 80 Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Advisory Opinion OC-18/03, September 17, 2003, para. 121. 81 Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Advisory Opinion OC-18/03, September 17, 2003, para. 112. 82 Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Advisory Opinion OC-18/03, September 17, 2003, para 104. 74