and (g) the topographic survey, the analysis of the ballistics trajectory and the reconstruction of the incident. 230. In addition, the Court notes that, during the investigation, several probative measures or steps to collect evidence were not conducted, or were not conducted appropriately, and that the crime scene was not investigated thoroughly. 271 The Court will therefore analyze whether the shortcoming that have been established in the initial measures had a decisive impact on the clarification of the facts and on the final result of the criminal proceedings. 231. The Court notes that the case file does not reveal that the crime scene was protected in order to preserve the area around the crime and any evidence to be found there. 272 The Court also notes that, in this case, the failure to do this had consequences on the effectiveness of the inspection of the scene, because it was not possible to collect sufficient evidentiary material and the material present had been contaminated by bystanders. In fact, the Court notes that a partially deformed piece of yellow lead and six 9 mm caliber cartridges were collected from the scene of the crime by private citizens, Ignacio Landaeta and José Francisco Hernández Ramírez, respectively, and handed over to the authorities responsible for the investigation (supra para. 78). Also, the record of the site inspection includes a general description of the crime scene and does not reveal that either the scene or the evidence found was investigated thoroughly; 273 moreover the location of the evidence was not documented before it was collected 274 in order to help clarify the events. 275 Similarly, although there are photographs of the site inspection and the body, 276 they are not the case file and were not provided by the State, even though the Court requested them as helpful evidence. 277 In this regard, the Court considers that photographs taken during the investigation could ensure certainty and verify the information collected during the inspections. 278 232. Regarding the autopsy, 279 the Court notes that there were a series of omissions, 280 such as: a superficial analysis of the injuries found, without establishing the presence of 271 Cf. Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez, supra, para. 127, and Case of Veliz Franco et al., supra, para. 191. 272 Cf. Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez, supra, para. 128, and Case of Veliz Franco et al., supra, para. 198. Cf. United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), Crime scene and physical evidence awareness for nonforensic personnel. New York 2009, p. 10. Available at: http://www.unodc.org/documents/scientific/Crime_ scene_awareness__Ebook.pdf and the Minnesota Protocol, supra. 273 Cf. UNODC, Crime scene and physical evidence awareness for non-forensic personnel, supra, p. 12, and the Minnesota Protocol, supra. 274 Cf. UNODC, Crime scene and physical evidence awareness for non-forensic personnel, supra, p. 12. 275 Cf. Site inspection record No. 1582 of November 16, 1996 (annexes to the answering brief, folio 9122). The record merely indicated the collection of a “piece of cotton impregnated with a reddish-brown substance.” 276 Cf. Minnesota Protocol, supra, p. 58. 277 Letters of the Secretariat dated May 20 and June 9, 2014 (merits file, folios 1224 and 1249). In its communication of June 11, 2014, the State indicated in relation to the photographs of the crime scene inspections and of the bodies that the Code of Criminal Procedure did not establish specifically the need for photographs. Nevertheless, reference is made to the existence of such photographs in the respective inspection records. 278 The Minnesota Protocol establishes in section C.1, paragraphs (b) and (c) the need to take photographs of both the victim and the scene of the crime and the evidence collected. Cf. Case of the Barrios Family, supra, para. 234. 279 The document in this Court’s case file is not the Autopsy Report itself, but a document dated November 19, 1996, prepared by two forensic physicians that describes the result of autopsy No. 872-96 performed on November 18 that year. Cf. Autopsy of the body of Igmar Landaeta of November 18, 1996 (annexes to the answering brief, folio 9210). 280 Regarding the autopsy that was performed, expert witness José Pablo Baraybar concluded that: (a) “there is no autopsy report as such, [but rather] a [very brief] document notifying the results of the autopsy […], that does not meet the standards required for the investigation; (b) photographs that support or corroborate the conclusions of the report are not [attached or mentioned]; (c) [there is no mention of] x-rays being taken, or whether or not there were bullets or fragments of bullets inside the victim; (d) [although the injuries found were listed,] there is no type of photographic record of [them], or any reference to the 61