69 scene and the removal, recognition and identification of the corpses, in order to clarify what happened. The Court has established that the efficient determination of the truth in the context of the obligation to investigate a possible death must be demonstrated from the outset, with full diligence in the initial procedures. 254 Similarly, this Court has held that, in the management of the crime scene and the handling of the victims’ bodies, certain basic and essential procedures must be carried out to preserve the elements of proof and evidence which could contribute to the success of the investigation, 255 such as the autopsy and the removal of the corpses. It has also indicated that due diligence in the investigation of a death implies maintaining the chain of custody for every item of forensic evidence. 256 In this case, it is clear that the loss of the remains collected on July 18, 1991 in the “Misteriosa” or “Vallarón” mine does not meet those standards. 229. In view of the foregoing, the Court considers that the State failed to ensure due diligence in the first investigative actions. B.2. The effectiveness of the habeas corpus remedy 230. In the instant case, the Commission and the representatives have alleged the lack of effectiveness of the habeas corpus remedy filed on July 18, 1991, by Alejandro Huamaní Robles on behalf of his son, Elihoref Huamaní Vergara, before the Examining Magistrate’s Court of Huancavelica (supra para. 103). In addition, they alleged that on the same day Mr. Huamaní Robles filed a second writ of habeas corpus before the Lircay Magistrate’s Court, but received no response. However, although the file contains a letter dated July 18, 1991, written by Mr. Alejandro Huamaní, it does not appear that it was actually received by the Lircay Magistrate’s Court. 257 There is also no record of any response. Therefore, the Court will only rule on the appeal filed before the Examining Magistrate’s Court of Huancavelica. 231. The Court recalls that Articles 7(6) and 25 of the Convention encompass different areas of protection. Article 7(6) of the Convention 258 has its own legal content, consisting of the direct protection of personal or physical liberty by means of a judicial order addressed to the corresponding authorities requiring them to bring detainees before a judge so that the latter may examine the legality of the detention and, if appropriate, order his or her release. 259 Given Cf. Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez v. Honduras, supra, para. 127, and Case of Human Rights Defender et al. v. Guatemala, supra, para. 204. In this regard, the Court has specified the guiding principles that must be observed in an investigation when confronted with a possible violent death. The State authorities who conduct an investigation of this type must attempt, at minimum, inter alia to: i) identify the victim; ii) recover and preserve the evidence related to the death in order to assist any potential criminal investigation of those responsible; iii) identify possible witnesses and obtain their statements regarding the death investigated; iv) determine the cause, manner, place and time of death, as well as any pattern or practice that may have caused the death, and v) distinguish between natural death, accidental death, suicide and homicide. Furthermore, it is necessary to exhaustively investigate the crime scene, carry out autopsies and analyses of human remains, in a rigorous manner, by competent professionals and using the most appropriate procedures. Cf. United Nations Manual on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-Legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions (Minnesota Protocol), Doc. E/ST/CSDHA/.12 (1991). 255 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. 301, and Case of Human Rights Defender et al. v. Guatemala, supra, para. 204. 256 Cf. Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico, supra, paras. 305 and 310, and Case of Rodríguez Vera et al. (Disappeared of the Palace of Justice) v. Colombia, supra, para. 489. Citing the United Nations Manual on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-Legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions Doc. E/ST/CSDHA/.12 (1991). 257 Cf. Letter of Alejandro Huamaní Robles of July 18, 1991, (evidence file, folio 515). 258 Article 7(6) of the American Convention establishes that: “Anyone who is deprived of his liberty shall be entitled to recourse to a competent court, in order that the court may decide without delay on the lawfulness of his arrest or detention and order his release if the arrest or detention is unlawful. In States Parties whose laws provide that anyone who believes himself to be threatened with deprivation of his liberty is entitled to recourse to a competent court in order that it may decide on the lawfulness of such threat, this remedy may not be restricted or abolished. The interested party or another person in his behalf is entitled to seek these remedies”. 259 Cf. Habeas Corpus under Suspension of Guarantees (arts. 27(2), 25(1) and 7(6) of the American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-8/87 of January 30, 1987. Series A No. 8, paras. 33 and 34, and Case of Rochac Hernández et al. v. El Salvador, supra, para. 162. 254