the country of Héctor Deras and the impossibility for Alba Luz of returning to attribute international liability to the State. Therefore, the IACHR concludes that the State is responsible for violating the right to freedom of movement and residence, protected by Article 22.1 of the American Convention, in conjunction with Article 1.1 thereof, to the detriment of Héctor and Alba Luz Deras. 74. Finally, in connection with protection of the family established in Article 17.1 of the American Convention, the Commission considers that the allegations refer to alleged impairment s, the substance of which is examined in several sections of the present report. Consequently, the ISACHR does not deem it necessary to pronounce separately on those allegations. C. Right to a fair trial and judicial protection (Articles 8(1) and 25(1), in conjunction with 1.1 of the American Convention) 75. Both the IACHR and the Court have determined that in cases concerning violent deaths, especially those in which state agents may be involved, the investigation must be conducted using all available legal means to determine the truth and to investigate, prosecute, and punish all those responsible for the deeds.75 In addition, States are required to provide a simple and prompt recourse, so that, inter alia, those responsible for human rights violations may be prosecuted and the victims obtain reparations for the harm suffered.76 76. Furthermore, in cases where death may have been the consequence of the use of lethal force by state agents, the European Court has found that the “most careful scrutiny” must be used, taking into consideration “not only the actions of the agents of the State who actually administer the force but also all the surrounding circumstances including such matters as the planning and control of the actions under examination.”77 Thus, “[a]ny deficiency in the investigation which undermines its ability to establish the cause of death or the person responsible will risk falling foul of this standard.”78 77. In the instant case, the Commission observed various omissions and irregularities in respect of the proceedings that should have been pursued following the death of Mr. Deras. First, the Commission notes that members of the security forces did not preserve the scene of the crime bur, rather, took Mr. Deras' remains to the morgue. Second, the public authorities did not perform an autopsy when Mr. Deras' remains were taken to the morgue in order to clarify the causes of death. Third, no steps were taken to ascertain the number of shots and the type of bullets used and to compare them with the weapons of the military personnel involved. 78. In addition, after the complaint filed by Otilia Flores immediately after Mr. Deras' death, the judicial authorities failed to initiate an investigation to throw light on what had happened, nor to identify those responsible. The Commission observes that it took the Public Prosecutors' Office 15 days from the time of the event to file a complaint, which eventually ended in a second instance conviction of Marco Tulio Regalado for the crime of murder. The IACHR notes that said judgment has still not been executed. The IACHR observes from the information available that the aforementioned person is a fugitive from justice and the State has not furnished information indicating that it has made every effort within its power to locate him. The State also reported that two other State agents involved in the facts of this case fled and proceedings against them are pending. The Commission observes that the State has also failed to submit information on steps taken to locate them so as to ensure the continuity of these proceedings and establish responsibilities for the death of the victim. 79. Thus, the IACHR notes that, based on the documentation provided, the investigations are allegedly still open 35 years after the facts. Given the scant information available and the length of time that has elapsed, the Commission considers that the State has not demonstrated that it acted with due diligence or within a 75 IACHR. Report No. 41/15. Cases 12.335, 12.336, and 12. 757 and 12,711. Merits. Gustavo Giraldo Villamizar Durán et al. Colombia. July 28, 2015, par. 195. See, also: I/A Court H.R. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre” v. Colombia. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 122, par. 219; and Case of Mendoza et al. v. Argentina, Preliminary Objections, Merits and Reparations, Judgment of May 14, 2013. Series C No. 260, par. 218. 76 I/A Court H.R. Loayza Tamayo Case v. Peru. Reparations. Judgment of November 27, 1998. Series C No. 42, par. 169. 77 ECtHR . McCann and others v United Kingdom. Decision of 27 September 1995, par. 36. 78 ECtHR. Milkhalkova and others v Ukraine. Decision of January 13, 2011, par. 42. 14