82. Likewise, according to the standards of the above-mentioned Protocol, it is established as general principle of the autopsies, in cases of suspicious deaths, that the labor of the forensic practitioners, among others, is to help to guarantee that the causes and circumstances of the death be disclosed in such a way that it results possible to present conclusions over the cause of death and the circumstances that contributed to it. In this way, the Protocol recognizes that in only a few cases the cause of death can be solely determined from the autopsy without any other additional information, therefore, the autopsy report should contain the list of findings of the injuries and provide an interpretation in relation to them. 128 83. Ultimately, regarding the principle of the reasonable time referred to in Article 8.1 of the American Convention, the Inter-American Court has established that it is precise to consider three elements in order to determine the reasonableness of the period of time during which a procedure is carried out: a) the complexity of the issue, b) the procedural activity of the interested party, and c) the judicial authorities’ behavior.129 In addition, the Commission and the Court have also considered the interest of the affected party. 130 2. Due diligence and reasonable time in the investigation of the deaths of Jimmy Guerrero and Ramón Molina 84. Hereunder, the IACHR will analyze the due diligence in the investigation of the deaths of Jimmy Guerrero and Ramón Molina, in relation to the clarification of the events, ex officio procedures , the custody and preservation of the evidence, the diligences carried out and the reasonable time. 85. First, the Commission observes that the entities in charge of the investigation faced two contradictory narratives. On the one hand, the family held that the deaths of Jimmy Guerrero and Ramon Molina were acts of police violence; and, on the other hand, from the record it appears that the State held that the deaths had been the result of a settling between criminal gangs. After the revision of the different probative elements carried out, the Commission does not observe that there exists any logic line of investigation oriented at the clarification of the events and the search of the truth, in view of the different versions. The Commission notices that the ballistic expertise carried out on the projectiles found, on the trajectory of the shot and the autopsy reports contain isolated information without any coordinated and integrated analysis thereof towards the clarification of possible hypothesis. It is not clear whether the expertise is aimed at giving an explanation regarding the death of the victims, considering the evident contextual elements already known by the time of the events, the records of harassment reported by Jimmy Guerrero, as well as the testimonies from eyewitnesses, specially by the person who survived the attack. 86. Second, the Commission observes that between 2003 and 2005, the CICPC and the Prosecutors in charge of the investigation requested the Command of the Armed Forces to issue a list of the names, hierarchies and location of state agents on the day of the murder as well as of the previous days. Moreover, the governing bodies of the investigation also requested the news book and the book of the weapons depot of the same time lapse. It appears in the record that after these reiterated requests, the Police Command provided an answer only twelve years after the first request, in the year 2015, and indicated that such evidence had been lost in the year 2010 due to precipitations. The record does not show any explanation regarding the unusual delay to answer to a simple request for information. As indicated in the previous section, this omission, due to its nature and lack of explanation, can be understood as concealment and hampering of the investigations. The Commission also observes that in 2016, the Criminalistics Unit corroborated that the bullets and bullets fragments under custody were lost. That is to say, the main pieces of evidence that could have provided elements leading to establish the identity of the perpetrators and their relation to the armed police forces were not properly safeguarded, analyzed or delivered. Ibidem. Paras. 148-182 and 255, 264 266. I/A Court. H.R. Case Vargas Areco Vs. Paraguay. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 155, para. 196; Case of the Ituango Massacres Vs. Colombia. Judgment of July 1, 2006, Series C No. 148, para. 289; and I/A Court of H.R. Case Baldeón García Vs. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of April 6, 2006. Series C No. 147, para. 151. 130 I/A Court. H.R. Case Valle Jaramillo and others Vs. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 27, 2008. Series C No. 192, para. 155. 128 129 18