g) As a result of the prolonged delays in implementing or expanding procedures, some evidentiary material could not be collected or was lost owing to the passage of time. In this regard, the photographs of the corpse of Eduardo Landaeta could not be handed over, because the roll of film had become hazy and there was no information on the hospital records of FABP, 351 the agent who had been injured during the transfer of Eduardo Landaeta, because these were destroyed after five years (supra para. 106). This reveals flaws in the chain of custody of the evidence, as well as its protection, even though the authorities should take reasonable measures to ensure and preserve the necessary evidentiary material to contribute to the success of the investigation and the criminal proceedings. 352 260. The Court underlines that these omissions were recognized by the Superior Prosecutor, because after the No. 4 Criminal Oversight Court of First Instance decided to deny the request for a dismissal of the case 353 by the Transitory Prosecutor because all the investigation procedures had not been concluded (supra para. 107), he forwarded the case to another prosecutor on July 13, 2005, considering that omissions existed that could preclude the punishment of those responsible (supra para. 108). 261. It is based on the foregoing that the Court has assessed the actions taken by the Venezuelan State, through its prosecution services, especially after 2004, in order to clarify the incident. Moreover, the Court reiterates that “[t]he negligence of the judicial authorities responsible for […] the opportune collection of evidence […], cannot be rectified [in most cases] by belated probative procedures during the investigations, [because] the inadequacies indicated can be categorized as serious breaches of the duty to investigate the events that occurred,” 354 so that such procedures must be carried out adequately and immediately, because in that way the State may obtain optimal information and this would improve the results of the investigation, by providing reliable data. In this regard, the Court finds that, in this specific case, the procedures carried out between 2004 and 2008, took place from 8 to 12 years after the events in December 1996, and therefore the State incurred in a lack of due diligence. 262. Similarly, in relation to the irregularities in the criminal proceedings, the Court notes that, on December 16, 2011, the First Instance Court handed down a judgment acquitting the three accused after examining the evidence. This was because their responsibility had not been proved (supra para. 115), following a series of reschedulings of the court hearing (infra para. 266) and even though the prosecutor of the Transitory Procedural Regime had presented an indictment arguing that the police agents had simulated having been intercepted by four individuals during the transfer, since this could not be true according to the evidence and that, given the number of bullets that entered the victim, his death could not have occurred inside the vehicle as the agents had indicated. 355 In consequence, the Fifteenth Prosecutor filed a remedy of appeal (supra para. 115) and, on December 30 that year, the Appellate Court decided to annul 351 An example of the ignorance of the facts of the case was revealed when the Transitory Prosecutor sent a request to the Maracay Medical Center on November 7, 2005, requesting information on the medical attention provided by Dr. “FABP,” who, in fact, was one of the accused in the criminal proceedings regarding the death of Eduardo Landaeta. Cf. Note No. 05-FT-MCAL-18397-05 issued by the prosecutor of the Public Prosecution Service for the Transitory Procedural Regime on November 7, 2005 (annexes to the answering brief, folio 7796). 352 Cf. Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”), supra, para. 301, and Case of Luna López, supra, para. 164. Cf. Minnesota Protocol, supra. 353 In July 2004, the Transitory Prosecutor requested the dismissal of the case based on the absence of sufficient evidence to indict the three police agents for perpetrating the offense of aggravated homicide in the case of the death of Eduardo Landaeta (supra para.107). 354 Cf. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre” v. Colombia. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134, para. 228, and Case of Veliz Franco et al., supra, paras. 197 and 198. 355 Cf. Indictment of the prosecutor of December 15, 2008 (annexes to the answering brief, folio 8128). 74