all the relevant hypotheses about the authorship.263 On this point, it should be recalled that it is not incumbent on the Court to examine the hypotheses concerning the perpetrators evaluated during the investigation into the facts and, consequently, to determine individual responsibilities, which is the task of the domestic criminal courts; rather, the Court must assess the acts or omissions of State agents based on the evidence presented by the parties.264 Likewise, it is not for the Court to substitute for the domestic jurisdiction, establishing the specific procedures for the investigation and prosecution of a specific case to obtain a better or more effective result, but rather to verify whether, in the course of the measures taken in the domestic sphere, the State violated its international obligations arising from Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention.265 The Court recalls that the result of a lack of diligence is that, as time passes, the possibility of obtaining and presenting pertinent evidence leading to clarification of the facts and determination of the corresponding responsibilities is unduly affected, whereby the State contributes to impunity.266 170. The Court has verified that, even though investigations were conducted into the facts surrounding the violent death of Claudina Velásquez Paiz, procedures have been carried out belatedly over 10 years. Thus, although the investigation started on August 13, 2005, the file shows that the prosecutors and assistant prosecutors in charge of the investigation only asked for access to the security videos in one of the places that Claudina Velásquez had presumably been a short time before her death, on September 4, 2005; on December 6, 2005, they received the statement of one of the members of the Voluntary Fire Service, which added information on what was found at the crime scene; on June 26, 2006, they held a reconstruction of the events in the presence of experts from the Public Prosecution Service; on October 30, 2007, and April 23, 2008, they requested information on the bills for instantaneous soups; on June 26, 2008, they asked for information on incidents reported to the PNC 110 number in the early morning hours of August 13, 2005; on July 23, 2008, and May 19, 2009, they asked for expert opinions on the ballistic trajectory; on November 24, 2008, a psychiatric profile of perpetrator, victim and crime scene was drawn up; on January 20, 2009, they received the statement of the forensic physician who performed the examination and forensic procedures at the crime scene, which added information on the findings made at the crime scene and, on August 11, 2011, they requested a laboratory analysis to determine the type of animal whose blood had been found on the victim’s hands (supra paras. 60, 63, 69, 78, 83, 86 to 88 and 165). The fact that these procedures were so delayed meant that the information that may have been obtained from them was not incorporated into the investigation from the start. Also, in some cases, it was not possible to obtain the information requested from the elements provided and, in other cases, the records were not conserved over time, so that the delay resulted in an irreparable loss of evidence. 171. Added to the above, the Court notes that the procedures were repetitive and delayed the investigation. Thus, on November 18, 2011, an expert report on the test for alcohol was issued, attaching a standard table on blood alcohol levels; however, an expert report on the drug and alcohol tests had already been issued on September 16, 2005. Starting in September 2005, 263 Cf. Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of April 3, 2009. Series C No. 196, para. 96, and Case of the Human Rights Defender v. Guatemala, supra, para. 214. 264 Cf. Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 10, 2007. Series C No. 167, para. 87, and Case of the Human Rights Defender v. Guatemala, supra, para. 214. 265 Cf. Case of Nogueira de Carvalho et al. v. Brazil. Preliminary objections and merits. Judgment of November 28, 2006. Series C No. 161, para. 80, and Case of the Human Rights Defender v. Guatemala, supra, para. 214. 266 Cf. Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña v. Bolivia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 1, 2010. Series C No. 217, para. 172, and Case of the Human Rights Defender v. Guatemala, supra, para. 214. The Court has defined impunity as the total failure to investigate, pursue, capture, prosecute and punish those responsible for human rights violations. Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Preliminary objections. Judgment of January 25, 1996. Series C No. 23, para. 173, and Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia, supra, footnote 184. 61