expressly indicated that, on December 30, 1997, while María Magdalena Mejías was at the Police Command Center, agents GACF and AAC, who were implicated in the death of Igmar Landaeta, came to the Command Center requesting that the minor, Eduardo Landaeta, be handed over to them in order to transfer him. 258 In the Court’s opinion, this reveals a possible linkage between the two cases. 224. The Court notes that, despite the evidence indicating a connection between the two deaths, the fact that the authorities had been advised about the presumed threats, harassment and danger faced by Eduardo Landaeta, and that the Ninth Prosecutor of the Public Prosecution Service was in charge of both cases for some time, the authorities did not conduct joint investigations into these incidents or make inquiries aimed at proving the connections. 259 In this regard, the Court has established that “[i]nvestigating with due diligence requires taking into account the events surrounding other murders and establishing some type of connection between them. This should be done, ex officio, without the victims and their family members having to assume this initiative.” 260 225. Based on the above, the Court considers that the isolated investigations that were conducted did not help clarify the facts or determine responsibilities. Thus, the Court finds that the State, by not investigating the two deaths together, failed to exhaust all possible lines of investigation that would have made it possible to clarify the facts. 261 B.2 Due diligence and reasonable time during the investigations and the criminal proceedings relating to the death of Igmar Alexander Landaeta Mejías 226. The Court has established that Igmar Landaeta died in November 1996 owing to the excessive use of force (supra para. 142). As a result of this, the Court notes that an investigation was opened and also criminal proceedings to clarify the incident and to impose the corresponding punishment on those responsible, which concluded with an acquittal and a dismissal. Consequently, and based on the arguments of the Commission and the parties, this Court must decide whether the investigations and the criminal proceedings in relation to the death of Igmar Landaeta were conducted with due diligence and within a reasonable time. Hence, the Court will now analyze: (a) the presumed omissions in the initial measures of investigation, and their impact on the final result of the criminal proceedings; (b) the presumed irregularities in the criminal proceedings, and (c) reasonable time. B.2.1 The initial investigation measures 227. The Court has established that, in the context of the obligation to investigate a death, the real determination to discover the truth is demonstrated by the thoroughness of the initial steps taken. 262 Thus, the Court has established the guidelines that must be observed in an investigation into a violent death, such as the one revealed by the facts of this case. The State authorities who conduct an investigation of this type must, at least, inter alia: (i) identify the victim; (ii) recover and preserve evidentiary material related to the death to aid in any possible criminal investigation of those responsible; 258 Cf. Request to open a preliminary inquiry into unlawful conduct by a State agent (infra footnote 294) presented by the Justice and Peace Human Rights Committee of the State Aragua on August 27, 1997 (annexes to the answering brief, folios 7083 to 7085). 259 Cf. Case of the Barrios Family, supra, para. 253. 260 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. 368, and, inter alia, Case of the Barrios Family, supra, para. 253. 261 Cf. Case of the Barrios Family, supra, para. 254. 262 Cf. Case of Servellón García et al. v. Honduras. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of December 21, 2006. Series C No. 152, para. 120, and Case of Veliz Franco et al., supra, para. 191. 59