1.1. Due diligence in the investigation and clarification of the facts 81. The Court has ruled that every time the State conducts an investigation because of the alleged perpetration of an offense, it must aim at achieving a specific goal, which is to find out the truth by prosecuting, trying, and, where appropriate, punishing those responsible for the offenses.”130 To ensure this, the investigation must be conducted by all legal means available131 and must be conducted with due diligence, effectively, seriously, and impartially.132 1.1.1. Initial actions 82. The IACHR recalls that, at the very start, States are required to act with thoroughness. 133 This is because the first steps of an investigation are essential elements “for the proper course of the judiciary investigation, especially when dealing with an incident that has cost the life of a person.” 134 As the Court has ruled, the lack of due diligence in the early stages of an investigation may lead to the loss of key evidence, because with the passage of time the possibilities of clarifying the facts and determining responsibilities gradually diminish.135 83. Indeed, the duty to ensure diligence includes the acts of investigation prior to court proceedings, because it is not possible to conduct an efficient and effective court trial if the investigative stage has not met the required characteristics mentioned in the preceding paragraph. 136 The Court has pointed out that “all of these requirements, as well as criteria of independence and impartiality, extend as well to nonjudiciary bodies in charge of conducting the investigation prior to court proceedings." 137 84. By virtue of the above, the Commission shall examine, at this point, if the State of Honduras conducted the investigations with due diligence in order to identify those responsible for the events on the basis of gathering the evidence needed to draw up lines of inquiry consistent with said evidence. 85. As has been the practice of both the Commission 138 and the Court139, when dealing with a violent death, the "United Nations Manual on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-Legal, 130 I/A Court H.R., Case of Kawas-Fernández v. Honduras. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of April 3, 2009. Series C No. 196, para. 101. 131 I/A Court H.R., Case of García-Prieto et al. v. El Salvador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2007. Series C No. 168, para. 101. 132 I/A Court H.R., Case of Gómez-Paquiyauri Brothers v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 8, 2004. Series C No. 110, para. 146; and I/A Court H.R., 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. 130. 133 I/A Court H.R., Case of Zambrano-Vélez et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 166, para. 121. 134 I/A Court H.R., Case of Myrna Mack-Chang v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2003. Series C No. 101, para. 167. IACHR, Report No. 37/00, Case 11.481, Merits, Monsignor Oscar Arnulfo Romero y Galdámez, El Salvador, April 13, 2000, para. 85. 135 I/A Court H.R., Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 22, 2009. Series C No. 202, para. 135; and Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 12, 2008. Series C No. 186, para. 150. 136 See: IACHR, Report No. 10/95, Case 10.580, Admissibility and Merits, Manuel Stalin Bolaños, Ecuador, September 12, 1995. I/A Court H.R., 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. 133. 137 138 See: IACHR. Report No. 48/97, Case 11.411, Merits, Severiano y Hermelindo Santiz Gómez “Ejido Morelia”, Mexico, February 18, 1998; Report No. 34/00, Case 11.291, Merits, Carandirú, Brazil, April 13, 2000; Report No. 1/98, Case 11.543, Merits, Rolando Hernández-Hernández, Mexico, May 5, 1998; Report No. 10/95, Case 10.580, Admissibility and Merits, Manuel Stalin Bolaños, Ecuador, September 12, 1995. 139 I/A Court H.R., 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 Miguel Castro-Castro Prison v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160, para. 383.