37 courts was due to a combination of procedural circumstances; one factor was the confusion over the jurisdictional issue. 185. Therefore, while the case was finally heard in the ordinary courts, which is the proper venue for a case involving violation of human rights and not police discipline, the time taken to settle the jurisdictional issue took a toll both on the investigative phase and on the trial phase. b. The failure to gather evidence essential for a clarification of the facts 186. The Commission also notes that there were several versions of the events in the instant case. Determining the veracity of one version as opposed to the others makes a judicial resolution possible. But in the instant case, establishing which version was accurate would have also determined what the nature of the crime committed was and, by extension, what sentence should be imposed, thereby securing justice that fit the crime. The Inter-American Court has held that an improper determination of the nature of the crime and a sentence that does not fit the crime, may contribute to impunity in cases of human rights violations.121 Hence, when states fail to exhaust every possible effort to ensure that the legal classification of the crime and the sentence imposed are the proper ones and proportional, they may compromise their international responsibility under the rights established in articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention. 187. Given the many doubts concerning the details of what happened, a reading of all the available documents from the file of the case in the domestic courts indicates that the State did not undertake the investigation as its own legal responsibility, and exhaust even means available to it to eliminate any doubts that emerged from the testimony. Using the previously cited United Nations Manual on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions as a tool of interpretation, nothing in the case file indicates that ballistics or other tests were done to determine whether a fully identified firearm could have discharged as a result of the pistol whipping known as “cachazos”. Taking into account that the different versions of the facts were focused on an aspect that could have been clarified reasonably through a test on the trajectory of the shot, technical tests were very important. This clarification could also have a significant impact on the assessment of the facts as unintentional or intentional homicide and, consequently, in the penalty imposed. 188. The diligences during the investigation were minimal and were focused on the recognition of the scene of the events. This evidentiary procedure was repeated three times, collecting the same exact information. However, it was not done any ballistics or other tests related with the weapon used, and the prospects that had been shot in the circumstances described by the police. All of these tests may have contributed to a clarification of which of the two versions of the facts were adjusted to what really happened. The judicial file shows that there were no other tests performed. 189. Nor is there anything in the case file to suggest that witnesses whose statements were inconsistent with each other were questioned and confronted. Furthermore, in the record of the hearing conducted by the Esmeraldas Criminal Court on November 14, 1995, reference is made to a 121 I/A Court H.R., Trujillo Oroza v. Bolivia Case. Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court of November 16, 2009, par. 39. I/A Court H.R., Barrios Altos v. Peru Case. Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court of September 7, 2012, considering 55.