to facts or arguments whose examination is not necessary because they have been included in the analysis of other violations in the following chapters. B.4.1. Due diligence in the investigation 130. The Court has consistently indicated that the duty to investigate is an obligation of means and not of results, which must be assumed by the State as its own legal duty and not as a simple formality condemned in advance to be ineffective, or as a mere management of private interests, which depends on the procedural initiative of the victims or their families or the private contribution of evidence. In addition, the investigation must be serious, objective, and effective, and be aimed at determining the truth and pursuing, capturing, and eventually prosecuting and punishing the perpetrators.109 131. It has also indicated that the obligation to investigate must be assumed by the State as its legal duty and not as a simple formality condemned in advance to be ineffective, or as mere management of private interests, which depends on the procedural initiative of the victims or their relatives or the private contribution of evidence. The right to effective judicial protection requires that the proceedings be directed in such a way as to avoid undue delays and hindrances that could frustrate said purposes.110 132. In order to determine whether the investigation was carried out diligently, the Court will refer to various measures of the criminal process, related to the identification of the victim, the treatment of the crime scene, the performance of an autopsy and other means of evidence. 133. The Court has established that the efficient determination of the truth within the framework of the obligation to investigate a possible death, must be meticulously shown from the first proceedings. This Court has specified that the state authorities conducting an investigation of this type must try, at a minimum, inter alia: (i) to identify the victim; (ii) recover and preserve the evidence related to the death, in order to assist in any potential criminal investigation of those responsible; (iii) identify possible witnesses and obtain their statements in relation to the death under investigation; (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. In addition, it is necessary to thoroughly investigate the crime scene, autopsies and analyzes of human remains must be carried out rigorously by competent professionals and using the most appropriate procedures.111 a) Investigation into Mr. Valenzuela’s death 134. Regarding the investigation of the death of Mr. Valenzuela, both the Commission and the representatives argued that although there is no information on the investigation to clarify his death, there are indications in other actions to determine the participation and responsibility of the police officers or state agents. They also stated that the State has exceeded the reasonable time to carry out the investigation. On the other hand, the State Cf. Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez v. Honduras. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 7, 2003. Series C No. 99, para. 127, and Case of Arrom Suhurt et al. v. Paraguay, supra, para. 142. 110 Cf. Case of Bulacio v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 18, 2003. Series C No. 100, para. 115, and Case of Pacheco León et al. v. Honduras. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 15, 2017. Series C No. 342, para. 74. 111 Cf. Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez v. Honduras, supra, para. 127, and Case of Villamizar Durán et al. v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2018. Series C No. 364, para. 175. 109 34