that, in addition to being contained on a single page, the information in the report is insufficient. The Court recalls that the purpose of an autopsy is to collect, as a minimum, information to identify the deceased, and the time, date, cause and manner of death. Moreover, autopsies should respect certain basic formalities such as recording the date, starting and finishing times, and place of the autopsy, together with the name of the official who is performing it. In addition, it is necessary, inter alia, to take adequate photographs of the body; to radiograph the body before it is removed from its pouch or wrappings and after undressing the body, documenting any injuries. 222 In the instant case, the Court underlines that, during the said autopsy: (i) neither photographs nor videos were taken following the initial external examination of the body, or of the internal examination; (ii) the clothes were not examined; (iii) the clothes were not packed up to perform tests to detect gunshot residue on them, and (iv) there was no reference to the probable distance from which the shots were fired. 223 The Court also stresses that the United Nations “Minnesota Protocol” or Model Protocol for a Legal Investigation of Extra-legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions was not followed. 224 181. In addition, the Court’s attention is drawn to the fact that the investigation into the firearm found in Mr. Ruiz Fuentes’ right hand has still not been able to determine how this weapon came into his possession. Regarding the statements taken to clarify the circumstances surrounding the death of Mr. Ruiz Fuentes, the Court notes that the case file only contains the interrogation of three PNC officers who were present at the scene of the crime.225 Moreover, there is no record that the judicial authorities took statements from possible eyewitnesses. 182. The Court also emphasizes that, more than 14 years after the death of Mr. Ruiz Fuentes, the investigation into the circumstances surrounding his death remains open. 183. Consequently, in the instant case, the Court considers that the State failed to conduct a series of appropriate and essential investigation procedures, and this deviated from “objective standards” for processing the crime. The Court considers that the omissions that occurred in the investigation of this case have meant that, from the day of Mr. Ruiz Fuentes’ death and up to the present, it has not been possible to clarify the facts or to investigate diligently, prosecute and, as applicable, punish, those possibly responsible for the facts. 184. Based on the above, the Court concludes that the State failed to act with due diligence to investigate, prosecute and, as applicable, punish those possibly responsible for the violent death of Mr. Ruiz Fuentes within a reasonable time. Therefore, it finds that the State violated Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, to the detriment of Hugo Humberto Ruiz Fuentes and his sister. Santa Rosa, on November 15, 2005 (evidence file, folio 231). 222 Cf. Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 16, 2009. Series C No. 205, para. 310. 223 Cf. Expert report of Dr. Guillermo Austreberto Carranza Izquierdo of June 3, 2008 (evidence file, folios 244 to 246). See also, Expert opinion provided by Guillermo Austreberto Carranza Izquierdo during the public hearing before the InterAmerican Court on March 5, 2019. 224 Cf. Expert report of Dr. Guillermo Austreberto Carranza Izquierdo of June 3, 2008 (evidence file, folio 245). 225 Statement of José Marroquín Solis before the district prosecutor of the Public Prosecution Service, Cuilapa, Santa Rosa, on March 21, 2006 (evidence file, folios 314 and 314); Statement of Óscar Valero Lara before the district prosecutor of the Public Prosecution Service, Cuilapa, Santa Rosa, on March 27, 2006 (evidence file, folios 1691 to 1694), and Statement of César Augusto Argueta before the district prosecutor of the Public Prosecution Service, Cuilapa, Santa Rosa, on March 28, 2006 (evidence file, folios 1695 and 1696). 43