251. The Court has established that the minor, Eduardo Landaeta, was detained in an unlawful and arbitrary manner by police agents, following which he died while in the State’s custody; thus, the State violated his right to liberty and humane treatment and the obligation to respect and to ensure the right to life (supra paras. 164, 196 and 203). As a result of these events, the Court notes that an investigation was opened as well as criminal proceedings against the three police agents who took part in the transfer of Eduardo Landaeta. However the proceedings are still underway, at the oral trial stage (supra paras. 117 and 212) and, at the present time, the facts have still not been clarified. The Court has also verified that the State has not investigated the lawfulness of the detention of Eduardo Landaeta, as well as the evidence that he was a victim of acts of torture. 252. Consequently, and based on the arguments of the Commission and the parties, the Court must establish whether the investigations and the criminal proceedings with regard to the death of Eduardo Landaeta were conducted with due diligence and within a reasonable time, and also analyze whether the absence of investigations into the detention and presumed acts of torture gave rise to the State’s international responsibility. In this regard, the Court will analyze: (a) the obligation to investigate the death of a person in the State’s custody; (b) the existence of presumed irregularities and omissions in the initial investigation procedures; (c) the existence of presumed irregularities during the criminal proceedings, and the reasonable time, and (d) the absence of investigations into the detention and the violation of personal integrity. B.3.1 Obligation to investigate the death of a person in the custody of the State 253. As indicated by the Court’s case law, and in light of the State’s obligation to investigate the death of a person who is in its custody, as in the instant case, the corresponding authorities have the duty to investigate the events, by all available legal means in order to determine the truth and obtain the prosecution and punishment, if this is deemed pertinent, of all those responsible for the events, especially when State agents are or could be involved. 320 The Court also reiterates its case law with regard to the obligation to provide judicial protection, adding that, in cases involving children, the obligation to combat impunity by all available legal means is increased. 321 In addition, the Court has already indicated that the State has the obligation to provide an immediate, satisfactory and convincing explanation for the death of any individual in its custody (supra para. 183). 254. In addition to the guidelines established by this Court and the international standards in cases of violent deaths 322 (supra para. 227), the Court finds it pertinent to emphasize that, in the case of deaths in the custody of State agents, the measures taken by the State must be guided by certain specific standards, inter alia: (i) an investigation ex officio, 323 that is complete, 324 impartial and independent, 325 taking into 320 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Merits, para. 177, and Case of Mendoza et al., supra, para. 218. 321 Cf. Case of Servellón García et al., supra, para. 154 and Case of Veliz Franco et al., supra, para. 183. 322 Cf. Minnesota Protocol, supra. In other words, the State authorities who conduct an investigation into a violent death must, at least: (i) identify the victim; (ii) recover and preserve evidentiary material related to the death to aid in any potential prosecution of those responsible; (iii) identify possible witnesses and obtain statements from them concerning the death; (iv) 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) distinguish between natural death, accidental death, suicide and homicide. Cf. Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez, supra, para. 127 and Case of Veliz Franco et al., supra, para. 191. Cf. ICRC, Guidelines for Investigating Deaths in Custody, supra, p. 13. Regarding the identification of witnesses and taking their statements Cf. Case of Garibaldi, supra, para. 122. 323 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Merits, supra, para. 177, and Case of Veliz Franco et al., supra, para.183. 324 Cf. Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 12, 2008. Series C No. 186, para. 146 and Case of Veliz Franco et al., supra, para. 250. Cf. ICRC, Guidelines for Investigating Deaths in Custody, supra, pp. 13, 15 to 17 and 25. 69