that might help with the investigation. Nor is there any proof that on-site inspections were carried out with the meticulousness needed to ascertain such details as the presence of blood stains in the vicinity of the body, hair, fibers, threads, footsteps or other traces, or marks made by a vehicle, or any other relevant evidence. 110. Third, the IACHR notes that the State did not present information regarding the autopsy performed on Mr. Gómez's body. Here, the petitioners reported that they were initially denied access to the forensic report and only later were told of the causes of Mr. Gómez's death. The Commission observes that neither an approximate time nor place of death is mentioned in the information provided by the parties. Along the same lines, the IACHR notes that although it was pointed out that Mr. Gómez's body showed signs of trauma and bruising, no forensic study of them was conducted. Nor were those injuries properly described. No mention was made of any indication, patters, or signs that could establish whether those injuries were pre- or post mortem. Fourth, the Commission takes note that the criminal investigation was unable to determine the day and approximate time of Mr. Gómez's death. 111. In light of all the above, the IACHR considers that from the preliminary stages of the investigation onwards, the State failed to comply with its obligation to investigate with due diligence. 2. Lack of due diligence in subsequent stages of the investigation 112. The Commission has established that, to be effective, investigations into human rights violations need to avoid omissions in the gathering of evidence and the pursuit of logical lines of inquiry.119 In cases that involve the violent death or disappearance of a person, the Commission and the Court have held that the investigation initiated should be carried out in such a manner as guarantee proper analysis of the hypotheses as to responsibility arising from it,120 and, in order to demonstrate the diligence of its inquiries, the State must show that it carried out an immediate, exhaustive and impartial investigation121 in which all possible lines of inquiry have been explored in a bid to identify the perpetrators of the crime with a view to their subsequent prosecution and punishment.122 113. The Inter-American Court has held that it is not the task of the organs of the inter-American system to "analyze the hypothesis about perpetrators prepared during the investigation of the events of the ... case and determine individual responsibility, whose definition corresponds to domestic criminal tribunals, but rather evaluate the acts and omission of State agents, pursuant to the evidence submitted by the parties."123 114. However, in cases that involve the violent death or disappearance of a person, the Commission and the Court have held that the investigation initiated should be carried out in such a manner as guarantee proper analysis of the hypotheses as to responsibility arising from it,124 and, in order to demonstrate the diligence of its inquiries, the State must show that it carried out an immediate, exhaustive 119 IACHR, Report No. 13/15, Case 12.349, Report on Admissibility and Merits, Mayra Angelina Gutiérrez Hernández and Family, Guatemala, March 23, 2015, par. 129. 120 I/A Court HR. Case of Kawas-Fernández v. Honduras. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of April 3, 2009. Series C No. 196, par.112. 121 IACHR. Report No. 51/13. Case 12.551. Paloma Angélica Escobar Ledezma et al. Merits (Publication). Mexico. par. 82; IACHR, Report on Merits No. 55/97, Juan Carlos Abella et al. (Argentina), November 18, 1997, par. 412. 122 IACHR, Report No, 25/09, Merits (Sebastião Camargo Filho) Brazil, March 19, 2009, par. 109. I/A Court HR. Case of Kawas-Fernández v. Honduras. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of Friday, April 3, 2009, Series C No. 196, par. 79. 123 124 I/A Court HR. Case of Kawas-Fernández v. Honduras. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of Friday, April 03, 2009. Series C No. 196, par.112. 20