31 101. The Court has held that such duty entails an obligation to use best efforts, rather than an obligation to ensure results,123 that does not mean, however, that the investigation can be “undertaken as a mere formality condemned in advance to be fruitless”.124 In that regard, the Court has held that “each State act that composes the investigation proceeding, and the entire investigation in itself, should be oriented at a specific purpose: the determination of the truth and the investigation, finding, arrest, prosecution and, if applicable, punishment of those responsible for the events”.125 102. The Court has specified the principles that should be applied in investigating a violent death. In accordance with the precedents of the Inter-American Court, State authorities in charge of conducting the investigation should at least try, inter alia: a) to identify the victim; b) to collect and preserve evidence related to the death in order to assist in any investigation; c) to identify possible witnesses and obtain testimonies in relation to the death under investigation; d) to determine the cause, manner, place and time of death, as well as any pattern or practice which may have brought about such death, and e) to distinguish between natural death, accidental death, suicide and homicide. In addition, it is necessary that a thorough investigation of the crime scene be conducted and rigorous autopsies and analyses of human remains be performed by competent professionals, using the best available procedures.126 103. In this regard, the Court notes that during the first few weeks after the deprivation of life of Mrs. Blanca Jeannette Kawas-Fernández, the authorities in charge of the investigation adopted a series of enquiry and evidentiary procedures aimed at clarifying the events, including the identification of witnesses and obtaining their statements (supra para. 55). That notwithstanding, there are no records that the evidentiary elements present at the crime scene were duly safeguarded (supra paras. 54 and 55), or that an autopsy or other type of analysis of the remains of Mrs. Kawas-Fernández has been performed. Moreover, as established above (supra para. 54), the authorities verified that the squad of the FSP that appeared at the crime scene did not perform any action aimed at arresting the perpetrators of the events “taking an indifferent and worriedless position in view of the situation arisen”.127 104. The testimonies received at the beginning of the investigation gave rise to various hypothesis regarding the responsibility for the crime; however, such investigation remained inactive for no apparent reason until 2003 (supra para. 59). 123 Cf. Case of Velasquez-Rodriguez. Merits, supra note 17, para. 177; Case of Heliodoro-Portugal V. Panamá. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 12, 2008. Series C. No. 186, para. 144; and Case of Valle-Jaramillo et al. V. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs, supra note 8, para. 100. 124 Cf. Case of Velasquez-Rodriguez, Merits, supra note 17, para. 177; Case of Heliodoro-Portugal. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs, supra note 123, para. 144; and Case of Valle-Jaramillo et al. V. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs, supra note 8, para. 100. 125 Cf. Case of Cantoral-Huamaní and García-Santa Cruz. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs, supra note 89, para. 131. 126 Cf. Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez V. Honduras. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 7, 2003. Series C No. 99, para. 127; Case of Escué-Zapata V. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 165, para. 106; and Case of Zambrano-Vélez et al. Merits, Reparations and Costs, supra note 87, para. 121. Cf. also: Case of the Moiwana Community V. Surinam. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 15, 2005. Series C No. 124, para. 149. 127 Cf. Technical Legal Report No. DCAT-SATJ- AFS 022/2003, supra note 31.