153. However, the Commission and the representatives mentioned procedures which, in their view, should have been carried out.91 For the purposes of this analysis, only those ordered by the authorities will be taken into account (infra para. 158). The Court will not consider possible specific investigative measures which, according to the arguments of the Commission or the representatives, should have been carried out and that were not ordered by the authorities92. This is so because, in principle, it is not up to the Court to determine the appropriateness or utility of specific investigative actions or measures, unless the failure to take them is contrary to objective standards, or is manifestly unreasonable. 154. From the body of evidence it is clear that, in this case, the authorities in charge of the investigation carried out numerous procedures to clarify the facts. These include the following: a) gathering evidence at the scene of the incident (supra para. 47); b) identification of eyewitnesses (supra para. 47); c) two visual inspections of the scene of the crime and the vehicle in which the Castillo family were traveling (supra para. 47); d) a medical examination and autopsy of the corpse (supra para. 48); e) expert assessments, including planimetric survey, ballistic and hematological tests (supra para. 48); g) autopsy performed on Mr. Castillo’s corpse (supra para. 50); h) several “interviews” conducted with eyewitnesses (supra para. 52 a 54); i) taking a statement from Mrs. Yelitze Moreno (supra para. 56); j) preparation of an artist’s sketch (supra para. 56); k) photographic identification of three alleged paramilitaries by an employee of the Vicariate (supra para. 67), and l) a medical examination of Mrs. Moreno (supra para. 70). 155. Furthermore, as regards the perpetrators of the crime, investigators examined possible involvement of people associated with Mr. Castillo’s personal activities. Thus, the day after the attack they “interviewed” a person who reported that Mr. Castillo had problems with a builder (supra para. 48). Then, that same day, a statement was taken from that builder (supra para. 48). In addition, a person who had business connections with Mr. Castillo was “interviewed” (supra para. 68). 156. As to the hypothesis regarding the possible involvement of Colombian paramilitary groups in Joe Castillo’s murder, the authorities received several pieces of information and statements. Thus, on September 5 and 8, 2003 “interviews” were held which suggested that Mr. Castillo had working relations with a person who had links with the FARC and had been murdered, apparently by “Colombian paramilitaries” (supra para. 54). On September 10 of that year, staff of the CICPC received a phone call reporting that Colombian paramilitaries traveling in a particular truck had participated in the murder of Joe Luis Castillo (supra paras. 57, 58 and 59). On that occasion, they even gave the nicknames of the individuals who supposedly belonged to a paramilitary group. Also, in the context of the investigations, a police captain referred to information, also mentioned by the press, that on November 20, 91 The omitted procedures mentioned by the Commission and the representatives are the following: 1) photographic identification of the person allegedly linked to the killing of Joe Luis Castillo; 2) ballistic comparison tests of the weapons seized from that person and shells from the bullets that struck Joe Castillo; 3) ballistic comparison between the weapons of the individuals who died on November 20, 2003 and the bullets that struck Joe Castillo; 4) obtaining photographs (taken when alive) of the individuals killed on November 20, 2003; 5) “additional procedures” to investigate the information received by telephone by a police officer which suggested the involvement of Colombian paramilitaries in the incident; 6) “surveillance and capture” of suspects; 7) failure to investigate judicial proceedings undertaken in Colombia, and 8) questioning a survivor of the confrontation with police on November 20, 2003 (supra paras. 133, 134, 136 and 137). 92 The measures that the representatives and the Commission argue should have been carried out and were not ordered by the domestic authorities are the following: 1) “additional procedures” to investigate information received by telephone by a police officer claiming the participation of Colombian paramilitaries in the events; 2) “surveillance and capture” of suspects; 3) failure to investigate judicial proceedings undertaken in Colombia, and 4) questioning a survivor of the confrontation with police on November 20, 2003 (supra paras. 134 and 137). 39