residues of soot, gunpowder or a burn, which would permit establishing the approximate distance between the gun barrel and the target; the absence of photographs to support the report’s conclusions, 281 and contradictions with the inspection of the body at the crime scene. 282 The Court also notes that this procedure merely concluded that the cause of death was severe cerebral contusion produced by a facio-cranial gunshot wound, 283 and did not collect all the necessary evidence to clarify the case, because it did not establish the time of death, 284 or the time that had elapsed between the moment that Igmar Landaeta was wounded and his death, relevant elements that should have been determined in this case. 233. The Court underscores that an autopsy should observe certain basic formalities, 285 and its purpose is to collect, at least, information to identify the deceased, and the time, date, cause and manner of death. Regarding the establishment of the time of death of Igmar Landaeta, expert witness José Pablo Baraybar indicated that, based on Dr. Velmar Quintero’s observations, according to the police record with the statement of agent Ildelgar Ferrera, at “3.20 p.m. on [November 17, 1996,] […] Landaeta Mejía[s], Igmar Alexander, entered this clinic […] and, on entry, he had two bullet wounds and displayed no vital signs.” 286 The expert witness concluded that this supported the hypothesis that Igmar Landaeta probably died at the scene of the incident and that, despite this, he was taken to a hospital; in his opinion, “Alexander [Landaeta] probably died on receiving the shot to his head.” 287 Mr. Baraybar stated that the transfer was made with the intention characteristics of the injuries such as their color, trajectory, depth or structure, and there is no mention of whether there was residue of soot, gunpowder or a burn, […] which would permit establishing the approximate distance between the gun barrel and the target, and (e) [there was] a possible contradiction with regard to the entry and exit holes caused by one of the bullet wounds suffered by Igmar Landaeta, based on the record of the inspection at the crime scene and the autopsy.” Cf. Testimony of expert witness José Pablo Baraybar of January 29, 2014 (merits file, folios 823 to 829). 281 Cf. Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez, supra, paras. 102 and 126 and Case of Veliz Franco et al., supra, para. 196 c). Cf. Minnesota Protocol, supra. In this regard, the State indicated that, at the time of the incident, bodies were not photographed during autopsies, but a general photograph of the body was taken to leave a record of the injuries to the body of the deceased and their specific characteristics. Cf. The State’s response of May 30, 2014, in relation to the helpful evidence requested by the Court in a letter from the Secretariat (merits file, folio 1247). 282 With regard to the bullet wounds suffered by Igmar Landaeta, Record No. 1581 of the inspection of the body described a “circular hole with regular inverted borders with a radius of 3 mm in the right back area of the thorax, with a circular hole with everted irregular borders in the left scapular area.” In addition, the document that referred to the results of the autopsy mentions the existence of an “entry hole: ninth back left intercostal space towards the internal scapular region. Exit hole: sixth right parasternal intercostal space. Trajectory: from the back towards the front, from above to below, from left to right.” According to the expert opinion of José Pablo Baraybar, “[this] contradiction appears serious, because if both bullet wounds had been inflicted at the same level (for example, anterior with a trajectory from front to back), it would have to be assumed that the direction from which the shots were fired would have been contrary to that described in the statements […].” Cf. Testimony of expert witness José Pablo Baraybar of January 29, 2014 (merits file, folios 836 and 837); inspection record No. 1581 of November 17, 1996 (annexes to the answering brief, folio 9105), and autopsy of the body of Igmar Landaeta of November 18, 1996 (annexes to the answering brief, folio 9210). 283 Cf. Autopsy of the body of Igmar Landaeta of November 18, 1996 (annexes to the answering brief, folio 9210). 284 According to the Minnesota Protocol, when investigating the crime scene, the following factors should be recorded in order to help estimate the time of death: “(i) Temperature of the body (warm, cool, cold); (ii) Location and degree of fixation of lividity; (iii) Rigidity of the body, and (iv) Stage of its decomposition.” The case file does not record that these factors were taken into account in the autopsy that was performed, because the time of death was not established. 285 The basic formalities that the autopsy should comply with include recording the date, starting and finishing time, and place of the autopsy, and the name of the professional who performs it. In addition, it is necessary, inter alia, to photograph the body adequately; to radiograph the body before it is removed from its pouch or wrappings, and after undressing it [if necessary], and to document every injury. Cf. Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”), supra, para. 310, and Case of Veliz Franco et al., supra, para. 194. Cf. Minnesota Protocol, supra. 286 Testimony of expert witness José Pablo Baraybar of January 29, 2014 (merits file, folio 836). 287 Testimony of expert witness José Pablo Baraybar of January 29, 2014 (merits file, folio 843). 62