of factors and the context in which they occurred, since only then will the legal analysis be consistent with the complex and continuous nature of this phenomenon 123. B.2. Examination of the case 80. It is undisputed that on July 17, 1980, Mr. Flores Bedregal was at the COB premises in his capacity as a national deputy (congressman), during the CONADE meeting, in order to plan and prepare actions to deal with a possible coup d'état by the Armed Forces. 124 Likewise, the "Hornet" military operation, which was the basis for the coup d'état was established, included the violent takeover of the COB. Those present at the meeting were forced to descend the stairs and leave the place with their hands up, including Juan Carlos Flores Bedregal, who was hit by a burst of gunfire. 125 The representative argued that they have received no actual news of Mr. Flores Bedregal's whereabouts or the location of his remains since then. The State argued that the alleged victim's death had been verified. 81. The Court notes that there is a document recorded as an act of removal of the body of Mr. Flores Bedregal (supra citation at footnote 41). Before proceeding to analyze said document, the Court will refer to the principles to be observed in the investigation of potentially unlawful death. These include the duty to carry out minimum and indispensable proceedings to preserve the crime scene and the chain of custody of the evidence on which the success of the investigation depends. 126 As for legal medical autopsies, the Court recalls that their purpose, at the very least, is to collect information to identify the deceased person and the time, date, cause, and manner of death. 127 Likewise, the body should be properly photographed, with x-rays taken of the body, its bag or material in which it is wrapped, and after undressing, any injuries must be documented. 128 According to this criterion, the Court has specifically stated that the parties who conduct an investigation of this type should try, at minimum, inter alia: (i) to identify the victim; (ii) to recover and preserve evidentiary material related to the death to aid in any potential prosecution of those responsible; (iii) to identify possible witnesses and obtain statements from them concerning the death; (iv) to determine the cause, manner, location, and time of death, as well as any pattern or practice that may have brought about the death, and (v) to distinguish between natural death, accidental death, suicide, and homicide. Additionally, the scene of the crime must be Cf. Case of Goiburú et al. Vs. Paraguay, supra, para. 85, and Case of Maidanik et al. v. Uruguay, supra, para. 117. 124 OEA, Report on the Situation of Human Rights in the Republic of Bolivia, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.53. Chapter IV. Political rights, subparagraph D, para. 2, and supra paras. 40 and 41 of this Judgment. 125 Regarding what happened to Juan Carlos Flores Bedregal on the day of the facts, Eduardo Germán Domínguez Bohrt stated in his testimony that he was going down the stairs with "his gaze directed towards the sea"; and that Juan Carlos was in front of him and received a burst of gunfire. In his statement he specifies that "his gaze directed towards the sea" means "to be looking down." Statement of Eduardo Germán Domínguez Bohrt of May 13, 2019, supra, and statement of Eduardo Germán Domínguez Bohrt before the Court, supra. 126 Cf. Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez v. Honduras. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2009. Series C No. 99, para. 127; Case of Velásquez Paiz et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 19, 2015. Series C No. 307, para. 150; Case of Ruiz Fuentes et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of October 10, 2019. Series C No. 384, para. 180, and Case of Olivares Muñoz et al. v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 10, 2020. Series C No. 415, footnote 154. 127 Cf. Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 26, 2002. Series C No. 205, para. 310; Case of Velásquez Paiz et al. v. Guatemala, supra, para. 151, citing the United Nations Manual on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions (Minnesota Protocol), supra; Case of Human Rights Defender et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 28, 2014. Series C No. 283, para. 207; Case of Velásquez Paiz et al. v. Guatemala, supra, para. 153, and Case of Muñoz et al. v. Venezuela, supra, para. 126. 128 Cf. Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico, supra, para. 310, and Case of Olivares Muñoz et al. v. Venezuela, supra, para. 126. 123 27