54 B. Disputed aspects regarding the investigation of the facts 211. In order to examine the points of the dispute regarding the investigation of the facts, the Court considers it necessary to recall that due diligence in the investigation requires that all actions and investigations necessary to obtain the desired result be carried out.219 However, “the proceedings […] must be assessed as a whole and it is not up to the Court, in principle, to decide whether the investigative measures are appropriate.”220 It is up to the Court to evaluate whether, in the specific case, the shortcomings or omissions that are proven, considered in relation to the set of procedures carried out by the State, harmed the clarification of the circumstances of the facts or affected the final result of the investigations undertaken.221 For this evaluation, objective or reasonable criteria must be taken into account, based on the particular circumstances of the case and the arguments of the parties and the Commission, and taking into account elements such as the evidence produced, the guidelines set forth by the case law of this Court, or the considerations of domestic authorities on measures that, in the specific case, they had indicated as necessary.”222 212. The Court has indicated that the investigating body must use all available means to carry out all those actions and investigations that are necessary in order to try to obtain the desired result.223 It is also necessary to avoid omissions in following-up logical lines of investigation.224 If relevant, “[t]he due diligence investigation requires taking into account what happened in other [events] and establishing some type of relationship between them. This must be promoted ex officio, without the victims and their relatives having the burden of assuming such an initiative”.225 Notwithstanding, the Court is not responsible for “substituting the domestic jurisdiction by establishing the specific modalities of investigation and trial […], but rather to verify whether or not international obligations were violated in the steps actually taken at the domestic level.”226 Therefore, the examination that the Court must carry out is independent of the investigations’ formal connection, the origin of which should be determined by the domestic authorities.227 Cf. Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters v. El Salvador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of March 1, 2005. Series C No. 120, para. 83, and Case of Coc Max et al. (Xamán Massacre) v. Guatemala, supra, para. 81. 220 Cf. Case of Castillo González et al. v. Venezuela. Merits. Judgment of November 27, 2012. Series C No. 256, para. 153, and Case of Carvajal Carvajal et al. v. Colombia, supra, para. 118. 221 Cf. Case of Luna López v. Honduras. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 10, 2013. Series C No. 269, para. 167, and Case of Coc Max et al. (Xamán Massacre) v. Guatemala, supra, para. 81. 222 Cf. Case of Castillo González et al. v. Venezuela, supra, para. 153, and Case of Coc Max et al. (Xamán Massacre) v. Guatemala, supra, para. 81. 223 Cf. Case of Gómez Palomino v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 136, para. 80, and Case of V.R.P., V.P.C. et al. v. Nicaragua, supra, para. 151. 224 Cf. Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters v. El Salvador, paras. 88 and 105, and Case of Coc Max et al. (Xamán Massacre) v. Guatemala, supra, para. 85. Similarly, the expert witness Iván González Amado indicated the importance of exploring logical lines of investigation, stressing that, in facts such as those of the case, it is necessary that the investigations take into account the true nature and dimension of the violations, their possible origins, contexts and relationship with the participation of the authorities and the exercise of local powers. Cf. Expert Opinion of Iván González Amado rendered by affidavit presented before the Court (evidence file, affidavits and expert opinions, fs. 12143 to 12195). 225 Cf. Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”), Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 16, 2009, para. 368 and Case of the Garífuna Community of Punta Piedra and its members v. Honduras. Preliminary Exceptions, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 8, 2015. Series C No. 304, para. 298. Similarly, the expert witness Valencia Villa indicated, regarding the case, that it was necessary to integrate the different lines of investigation between the three events, since they are interdependent, and that investigating them individually implies that there is fragmentation, which increases the risk of losing evidence”. Expert Opinion Alejandro Valencia Villa rendered by affidavit presented before the Court (evidence file, affidavits and expert opinions, fs. 11868 to 11880). 226 Cf. Case of Nogueira de Carvalho et al. v. Brazil. Preliminary Exceptions and Merits. Judgment of November 28, 2006. Series C No. 161 para. 80, and Case of Coc Max et al. (Xamán Massacre) v. Guatemala, supra, para. 81. 227 In this regard, the expert witness González Amado indicated that the relationship in the investigations depends on the regulations and the organization of the investigation structure, and that in some cases the exchange 219