B.1.b Initial measures following the discovery of the body, 73. The Court has indicated consistently that the efficient determination of the truth in the context of the obligation to investigate a death must be evident owing to the meticulous nature of the initial measures taken.112 When investigating a violent death, the first stages of the investigation are crucially important as is the negative impact that omissions and irregularities at such stages may have on the real and effective possibility of clarifying the facts.113 Accordingly, the Court has defined the guiding principles that must be observed in an investigation into a violent death, such as in this case. The State authorities who conduct the investigation must, at a minimum, take all reasonable steps to, inter alia: (i) identify the victim; (ii) recover and preserve all material relating to the death; (iii) identify possible witnesses and obtain their evidence in relation to the death; (iv) determine the cause, manner, place and time of death, as well as any pattern or practice that might have caused the death, and (v) distinguish between natural death, accidental death, suicide and homicide. In addition, an exhaustive investigation of the scene of the crime must be conducted, as well as rigorous autopsies and the analysis of human remains by qualified professionals, using the most appropriate procedures.114 74. Furthermore, in all its case law, the Court has indicated that, in relation to the scene of the crime, the investigators must, at a minimum: (i) photograph the scene and any other physical evidence, and the body as it was found and after it has been moved; (ii) gather and conserve the samples of blood, hair, fibers, threads and other clues; (iii) examine the area to look for footprints or any other trace that could be used as evidence, and (iv) prepare a detailed report with any observations regarding the scene, the measures taken by the investigators, and the storage assigned for all the evidence collected.115 The Court has also established that, when investigating a crime scene, this must be preserved in order to protect all the evidence.116 75. In the instant case, the Court notes that the record of the removal of the corpse contained general information on Mr. Gómez Virula, the position in which his body was found and how he was dressed and included a list of his belongings. It also indicated that it was not possible to determine his injuries owing to the state of decomposition of the body.117 Nevertheless, the forensic autopsy performed at 2 p.m. on the day that the corpse was found describes the injuries and the condition of the organs, and concludes that the cause of Mr. Gómez Virula’s death was “fourth degree traumatic brain and chest injury.”118 76. The Court notes that there is no record in the case file: that the scene of the crime had been preserved in order to gather and conserve samples of blood, hair or other clues; that the Cf. Case of Servellón García et al. v. Honduras. Judgment of September 21, 2006. Series C No. 152, para. 120, and Case of Ruiz Fuentes et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 10, 2019. Series C No. 384, para. 178. 112 Cf. Case of Servellón García et al. v. Honduras. Judgment of September 21, 2006. Series C No. 152, para. 119, and Case of Villamizar Durán et al. v. Colombia. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2018. Series C No. 364, para. 175. 113 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, and Case of Ruiz Fuentes et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 10, 2019. Series C No. 384, para. 178. 114 Cf. 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 Villamizar Durán et al. v. Colombia. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2018. Series C No. 364, para. 176. 115 Cf. Case of the Landaeta Mejías Brothers et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 27, 2014. Series C No. 281, para. 254, and Case of Villamizar Durán et al. v. Colombia. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2018. Series C No. 364, para. 176. 116 Cf. Record of removal of the corpse of March 19, 1995, signed by the assistance prosecutor (evidence file, folios 682 and 683). 117 Cf. Communication of March 28, 1995, signed by the forensic physician of the Department’s judicial body (evidence file, folios 484 and 706). 118 20