2011, various probative elements were received and a date was set for the appearance of several individuals involved in the facts.360 D. General considerations of the Court regarding the investigations 233. Eight domestic criminal investigations were initiated within the factual context of this case. None of these investigations has resulted in the judicial elucidation of the facts or the punishment of those responsible. All these investigations have common elements that reveal lack of due diligence. The Court will now list these common elements and, subsequently, will analyze each of them. 234. The Court observes that, during the on-site inspections, there was to failure to immediately photograph the sites of the incidents,361 the evidence found, the bodies of the deceased victims, and the property affected; also, there is no record that fingerprints were taken from the weapons supposedly involved in the facts, or from other evidence collected, or that inquiries were made to determine to whom the weapons belonged that have not been attributed to the agents implicated. Similarly, no forensic technical inspections were made at the onset of the investigations, such as reconstructions of the events (supra paras. 204 and 211). Furthermore, the logbooks of the police stations concerned were not submitted, or else were presented extremely late, and their whereabouts were not investigated when the responsible authorities indicated that they did not have them; also, there is no indication that investigations were conducted, as appropriate, into administrative responsibilities for mislaying or concealing them. In addition, all the police officials involved and previously identified were not summoned to testify immediately, and neither were possible witness or the next of kin of the victims. Lastly, several authorities omitted or delayed obtaining or forwarding the probative elements requested by the Prosecutor and, as applicable, by the Investigation Unit. 235. Moreover, this Court has indicated the guiding principles that must be observed in an investigation into a violent death. According to the Court’s case law, the State authorities who lead an investigation of this type must try, at the very least, inter alia: (a) to identify the victim; (b) to recover and preserve the probative material related to the death, in order to contribute to a potential criminal investigation of those responsible; (c) to identify possible witnesses and obtain their statements in relation to the death investigated; (d) to determine the cause, manner, place, and time of death, as well as any pattern or practice that may have resulted in the death, and (e) to distinguish between death from natural causes, accidental death, suicide and murder. In addition, the scene of the crime must be investigated exhaustively, and meticulous autopsies and analyses of human remains must be performed by competent professionals, using the most appropriate procedures.362 236. In the investigation of the deaths in the instant case, in which an armed confrontation between the police and the victims has been alleged, no examination was made of atomic absorption based on the samples recovered from the hands, which, in the opinion of expert witness Baraybar, would have allowed determination of whether the victim had handled a firearm in the moments before his death. 360 Cf. Aide-mémoire of the Twentieth Prosecutor of August 10, 2011, supra note 132, folio 2449. 361 Cf. In the case of the investigations into the deaths of Benito Barrios and Rigoberto Barrios, photographs were taken of the site; however, they were taken eight years and more than 20 days, respectively, after the events (supra para. 194). 362 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 Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña, supra note 179, para. 217. 81