the omission of these injuries in the report, he indicated that the function of the forensic physician who goes to the scene of the crime is to assess the manner of death, and that it is the forensic expert in charge of performing the autopsy who should make a precise description of each of those injuries. Consequently, this information was obtained more than three years after Claudina Velásquez’s death, affecting the course of the investigation. 166. It should be recalled that, following the Ombudsman’s recommendations, a disciplinary procedure was opened against the forensic physician who performed the autopsy. As a result of this procedure, the Disciplinary Regime Unit of the Judiciary’s Human Resources System considered that the physician’s omission of the name and the exact time of the victim’s death were minor, serious and extremely serious errors, and therefore imposed a sanction of 20 days’ suspension without pay. However, since the forensic physician had terminated his employment relationship with the Judiciary on December 5, 2007, the Supreme Court of Justice found that the disciplinary sanction was inapplicable (supra para. 97). The Court recognizes the measures that the State has tried to implement; however, the disciplinary procedure against the forensic physician did not take into consideration all the irregularities he committed while performing the autopsy and recording it, which have been described in this section. 167. In addition, the Court recalls that disciplinary procedures were opened against the assistant prosecutor and three criminal investigation experts who took part in the initial stages of the investigation conducted by the Head Office for the Prosecution of Crimes against Life and Integrity and also by the Criminal Investigation Department. It is on record that, in the context of these procedures, in 2009, the assistant prosecutor was sanctioned with a written reprimand and two of the criminal investigation experts with verbal reprimands while, in the case of the third expert, it was decided that the procedure against him was unfounded (supra para. 93). However, since this Court has no further information, it cannot determine to what point and to what degree these sanctions bear any relationship to the irregularities identified in this section. Also, there is no record of how the procedure opened against the assistant prosecutor in the case concluded. 168. Based on the above, the Court concludes that, in this case, the following irregularities occurred: (i) absence of a police record of the discovery of the body; (ii) failure to investigate the indications that the body had been tampered with; (iii) incorrect handling of the crime scene; (iv) irregularities in the recording and preservation of evidence; (v) failure to collect and preserve evidence; (vi) irregularities in the performance of the autopsy, and in the report; (vii) irregularities and failure to determine the time of death; (viii) reference to the victim as “XX” in investigation reports prepared following her identification, and (ix) irregularities in the external forensic medicine examination and the respective report. It would be hard to rectify the shortcomings in the initial investigation procedures by means of the belated and insufficient evidentiary procedures that the State has tried to conduct. In addition, the loss of evidence is irreparable. Due to all the above, the due diligence and rigor of the investigation was affected. B.2. Lack of due diligence regarding logical lines of investigation, collection and obtaining of evidence, and reasonable time 169. The Court has established that, to guarantee its effectiveness, the investigation of human rights violations should avoid omissions in gathering evidence and following up on logical lines of investigation.262 In this regard, the Court has stipulated that, when the facts refer to a violent death, the investigation must be conducted in a way that can ensure the appropriate analysis of Cf. Case of the La Rochela Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C No. 163, para. 158, and Case of the Human Rights Defender v. Guatemala, supra, para. 214. 262 60