Francisco de Cara Police Station; nevertheless, the file shows that he had received this information on January 29, 2007. 249. Consequently, the Inter-American Court concludes that the authorities did not act with due diligence in investigating the searches, destruction of property, and setting fire of the homes of Luis Alberto Barrios, Orismar Carolina Alzul García, Brígida Oneyda Barrios, Justina Barrios and Elbira Barrios. Therefore, the State violated the right to judicial guarantees and to judicial protection established in Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Luis Alberto Barrios, Orismar Carolina Alzul García, Brígida Oneyda Barrios, Justina Barrios and Elbira Barrios.364 3. Investigation of the death of Narciso Barrios and the threats against Néstor Caudi Barrios 250. Following these incidents, the authorities in charge of the investigations have proceeded to order and carry out various procedures to determine the facts. Despite this, the Court notes that there were some shortcomings and omissions (supra paras. 234, 236 and 237). When removing the body and collecting the corresponding evidence, the weapons of the police involved were not confiscated; merely the weapon supposedly carried by the victim. It also clear that the body of the victim was not taken into safekeeping promptly, because the police abandoned the scene upon seeing a group of people approaching and admonishing them; also there is no record that the authorities in charge took statements from them all as witnesses. Moreover, the police stated that they did not verify the condition of the victim before leaving the scene.365 251. In addition, Eloisa Barrios was the one who gave the investigation team photographs of the exterior of the building where Narciso Barrios died, which show bullet holes in the external walls; she also asked repeatedly that certain probative measures be implemented promptly (supra paras. 206 and 211). In this regard, there is no record whether the authorities made the corresponding forensic appraisals of these photographs. 252. Furthermore, there is no record that an official reconstruction of the event was carried out, or a ballistic trajectory appraisal, or that those involved were located, among other omissions; particularly taking into consideration the different versions of what happened that are revealed by the statements of eyewitnesses and the police involved. In addition, no steps were taken to verify why a multiple armed response by the police was required, because the latter indicated that they each fired at least three shots, and that the victim fired “two or three” shots.366 Moreover, the ballistic comparison appraisal concluded that five cartridge shells retrieved from the scene were shot by one of the rifles assigned to the Barbacoas Police Station.367 253. Lastly, the Court emphasizes that, despite the different statements and evidence that links these facts to the threats against Nestor Caudi Barrios and the searches and destruction of the homes of some members of the family, the authorities did not investigate 364 Cf. Complaint filed before the Senior Prosecutor of the Public Prosecution Service on March 1, 2004, supra note 139, folios 3210 to 3216. 365 Cf. Records of interviews with Jose Luis Riasco Leon and Marcos Antonio Moreno Dorta on June 24 and 29, 2004, supra note 283, folios 6020, 6022 and 6029. 366 Cf. Testimony of Marcos Antonio Moreno Dota, Leomar Jose Rovira Mendez and Jose Luis Riascos on November 26, 2004, supra note 74, folios 6054, 6058 and 6061. 367 Cf. Note No. 9700-064-DC-5658.2004 of the Investigation Unit, supra note 289, folio 6103. 84