488. The Court has indicated that the authorities must conduct the investigation as an inherent legal obligation, and not leave this to the initiative of the next of kin. 753 This is a basic and determinant element for the protection of the rights affected by such situations. 754 Consequently, the investigation should be conducted using all available legal means with the purpose of discovering the truth and achieving the pursuit, capture, prosecution and eventual punishment of all the masterminds and perpetrators of the acts, especially when State agents are or could be implicated. 755 Likewise, impunity must be eliminated by the establishment of both the general (State) and individual responsibilities, of a criminal and any other nature, of its agents or of private individuals. 756 In compliance with this obligation, the State must remove all obstacles, de facto and de jure, that maintain impunity. 757 B.5.1) Due diligence in the initial investigation measures 489. In this case, one of the main hypotheses regarding what happened to the presumed disappeared victims is that they died inside the Palace of Justice. Therefore, the obligation of due diligence in the investigation of these events included the correct processing of the crime scene and examination, identification, and removal of the corpses in order to clarify what happened. The Court has established that the effective establishment of the truth in the context of the obligation to investigate a possible death must be apparent in the meticulous nature of the initial measures taken. 758 The Court has also asserted that, during the processing of the crime scene and of the corpses of the victims, basic essential procedures should be performed in order to conserve the evidence and any indications that may contribute to the success of the investigation, 759 such as the removal of the corpse and and costs. Judgment of November 26, 2013. Series C No. 274, para. 182. 753 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 177, and Case of Osorio Rivera and family members v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 26, 2013. Series C No. 274, para. 178. 754 Cf. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140, para. 145, and Case of Osorio Rivera and family members v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 26, 2013. Series C No. 274, para. 178. 755 Cf. Case of Myrna Mack Chang v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2003. Series C No. 101, para. 156, and Case of the Landaeta Mejías Brothers et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 27, 2014. Series C No. 281, para. 216. 756 Cf. Case of Goiburú et al. v. Paraguay. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 22, 2006. Series C No. 153, para. 131, and Case of Osorio Rivera and family members v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 26, 2013. Series C No. 274, para. 178. 757 Cf. Case of Myrna Mack Chang v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2003. Series C No. 101, para. 277, and Case of Osorio Rivera and family members v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 26, 2013. Series C No. 274, para. 178. 758 Cf. Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez v. Honduras. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 7, 2003. Series C No. 99, supra, para. 127, and Case of the Human Rights Defender et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 28, 2014. Series C No. 283, para. 204. In this regard, the Court has stipulated the guiding principles that must be observed in an investigation when a possible violent death is involved. The State authorities who conduct an investigation of this type should try, at least, inter alia: (i) to identify the victim; (ii) to recover and preserve evidentiary material related to the death to aid in any potential prosecution of those responsible; (iii) to identify possible witnesses and obtain statements from them concerning the death; (iv) to determine the cause, manner, location and time of death, as well as any pattern or practice that may have brought about the death, and (v) to distinguish between natural death, accidental death, suicide and homicide. In addition, the scene of the crime must be investigated thoroughly; autopsies must be performed, and human remains examined rigorously by competent professional using the most appropriate procedures. Cf. United Nations Manual on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions (Minnesota Protocol), UN Doc. E/ST/CSDHA/.12 (1991). 759 Cf. Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 16, 2009. Series C No.205, para. 301, and Case of the Human Rights Defender et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 28, 2014. Series C No. 283, 170