which occurred during the military regime, just like the instant case- against suspects who are or have been military officers, must be conducted before the ordinary courts and not in military courts. 307 176. In that sense, the Commission has constantly stated that: “[t]he military criminal justice system has certain peculiar characteristics that impede access to an effective and impartial remedy in this jurisdiction. One of these is that the military jurisdiction cannot be considered a real judicial system, as it is not part of the judicial branch, but is organized instead under the Executive. Another aspect is that the judges in the military judicial system are generally active-duty members of the Army, which means that they are in the position of sitting in judgment of their comrades-in-arms, rendering illusory the requirement of impartiality, since the members of the Army often feel compelled to protect those who fight alongside them in a difficult and dangerous context”.308 177. This investigation must be carried out through all legal means available to determine the truth and the investigation, prosecution and punishment of all those responsible for the events. While it is an obligation of means, and not of results, the duty to investigate must be borne by the State as its own legal duty.309 In this regard, the State must ensure the collection of evidence, including, among others, witness statements, forensic evidence and, where appropriate, an autopsy providing a complete and accurate record of injury and an objective medical analysis of the findings, including the cause of death. 310 178. The State must also ensure the independence of medical and health staff in charge so they can freely practice the necessary medical evaluations, respecting the standards in the practice of their profession.311 In this regard, the Commission notes that encouraging investigation effectiveness also depends on the provision of adequate protection for witnesses against threats, pressure or reprisals 312 – particularly if these individuals are also detained. Finally, this type of investigation and its results must be subjected to public scrutiny.313 179. In the instant case, the IACHR notes that State authorities did not act in accordance with these provisions. Instead, as was proven, the military regime forged a fake version of the death of Vladimir Herzog and initiated a preliminary investigation by a military criminal court, whose final sentence decided to 307 I/A Court H.R. Case of Gomes Lund et al. (“Guerrilha do Araguaia”) v. Brazil. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2010. Serie C No. 219, para. 257. 308 IACHR, Report No. 2/06, Case 12.130, Miguel Orlando Muñoz Guzmán, Mexico, February 28, 2006, para. 83, 84, in IACHR. The Right to Truth in the Americas. OEA/Ser.L/V/II.152. Doc. 2. August 13, 2014. Para. 103. 309 I/A Court H.R. Case of Mendoza et al. v. Argentina. Preliminary Objections, Merits and Reparations. Judgment of May 14, 2013 Serie C No. 260. Para. 218. 310 The inter-American system has referred to the Principles on the effective prevention and investigation of extra-legal, arbitrary and summary executions, adopted by the United Nations Economic and Social Council in its resolution 1989/65, as guidelines that should be observed in the investigation into a violent death. These principles require that in such cases the investigation of the suspicious death shall have the following objectives: to identify the victim; to recover and analyze all physical and documentary evidence; to identify possible witnesses and collect their testimony; to determine the cause, manner and time of death, as well as the procedure, practice or instruments that may have caused the death; to distinguish between natural death, accidental death, suicide and homicide; and to identify and arrest the person or persons who may have been involved in the execution. United Nations, Principles on the effective prevention and investigation of extra-legal, arbitrary and summary executions, adopted by the Economic and Social Council in its resolution 1989/65. The regional system has also referred to the guidelines set forth in the United Nations Manual on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-Legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions, noting that one of the most important aspects of a "thorough and impartial" investigation into an extrajudicial, arbitrary or summary execution is the collection and analysis of evidence in a suspicious death.310 Therefore, the Manual sets forth that, in relation to the crime scene, investigators must at least photograph the scene, any other physical evidence and the body as was found and once moved; collect and preserve all samples of blood, hair, fibers, threads and other clues; examine the area for traces of shoes or other evidence; and prepare a report detailing every observation of the scene, the actions of the investigators and the fate of all the evidence collected. In addition, it is necessary to thoroughly investigate the scene of the crime, and an autopsy should be performed, as well as a rigorous analysis of human remains by competent professionals. United Nations Manual on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-Legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions. Doc. E/ST/CSDHA/12 (1991). 311 In this regard, see United Nations. Istanbul Protocol. Manual on the Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, August 9, 1999, para. 56, 60, 65 and 66. 312 IACHR. Annual Report 2013. Report of the Office of the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression. Chapter III (Violence Against Journalists and Media Workers: Inter-American standards and national practices on prevention, protection and prosecution of perpetrators). OEA/Ser.L/V/II.149. Doc. 50. December 31,2013. Para. 1. 313 See Güleç, op. cit., p 1733, § 82;. Ogur, op. cit., § 92; Gül, op. cit., § 93;.. and the trials of Northern Ireland, e.g., McKerr v. United Kingdom, no 28883/95, § 148, CEDH 2001-III) 41