Recovered Objects Unit of the Scientific, Penal and Criminal Investigations Corps.264 Likewise, the Court notes that in several procedures the authorities omitted or delayed the testing or submission of evidence required by the prosecution, despite several requests made at different times.265 Finally, it is significant that on October 24, 2005, the Head of the Scientific, Penal and Criminal Investigations Corps reported that he did not know the exact location of the evidence, and was therefore unable to identify it.266 220. With regard to the independence of the investigative body and considering its case law on the matter,267 the Court notes that in this case several investigative procedures were performed by the same institution to which the police officers under investigation belonged (Technical Unit of the Judicial Police – CTPJ- attached to the Armed Police Forces268). In this regard, the Commission stated, without it being disputed by the State, that “until November 20, 2001, when Executive Decree No. 1511 entered into force creating the Scientific, Penal and Criminal Investigations Corps (“CICPC”), the CTPJ was responsible for assisting the Public Prosecutor’s Office in the investigation of crimes at the time when the events occurred,”269 which could have led to several irregularities found in the investigation process. 221. Finally, there is nothing to suggest that any of the procedures undertaken by the authorities involved in the investigation or the court proceedings relating to the death of Néstor José Uzcátegui, took account of the context of extrajudicial executions that existed in the State of Falcón at that time. Indeed, the procedures carried out show that the case was addressed considering only the specific circumstances of the case and not the context in which it took place.270 222. In this regard, the Court considers that in order to comply with the duty to investigate cases such as this, it is not sufficient to have knowledge of the crime scene and material circumstances of the crime; rather it is essential to analyze the information concerning the power structures that permitted, planned and executed it, 264 Specifically, part of the evidence was wet and in poor condition, hindering its identification and analysis as a result of being kept for a long period in an evidence storeroom, without the basic conditions for its preservation and safekeeping. Official letter No. 9700-060 from Pedro José Requena, Chief Commissioner, Head of the Sub-delegation Coro, addressed to the Seventh Prosecutor of the Public Prosecutor’s Office, dated October 24, 2005 (Evidence file, volume 21, pages 6918). 265 Also see expert report rendered by the Dr. Juan Carlos Modollel by affidavit on November 24, 2011 (Evidence file, volume 17, page 5539). 266 Cf. Expert report rendered by the Dr. Juan Carlos Modollel by affidavit on November 24, 2011 (Evidence file, volume 17, page 5540). See also, Report of the Head of the Coro branch of the Scientific, Penal and Criminal Investigations Corps of October 4, 2005 (Evidence file, volume 21, pages 6692 and 6693), and Record of October 11, 2005, Seventh Prosecutor of the State of Falcón (Evidence file, volume 21, pages 6694). 267 Cf. Case Zambrano Vélez et al. v. Ecuador, para. 122, Case Durand and Ugarte V. Peru. Judgment of August 16, 2000. Series C No. 68, paras. 125 and 126 and Case of Montero Aranguren et al. (Detention Center of Catia) V. Venezuela, para. 81. 268 Law published in the Special Gazette Nº 5262 of September 11, 1998. Available as of September 1:http://docs.venezuela.justia.com/federales/leyes-organicas/ley-organica-del-ministerio-publico.pdf. 269 Article 2 of the “Law on Police Investigations”, pursuant to the “Law for the Reform of the Judicial Police” published in Special Gazette No. 5.262 of September 11, 1998 states: “the role of criminal investigations police corresponds to the police forces and units, whatever their nature and sphere of action, as required by the Public Prosecutor’s Office, in strict compliance with its sphere of competence, as established in the respective regulations. […] For the purposes of this Article, the Public Prosecutor’s Office shall determine the nature of the crime or the circumstances of its perpetration.” 270 Cf. Case of the Massacre of Mapiripán v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134, para. 219; Case González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico, para. 454 and Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia, para. 119. 56