6 the sentence imposed14 or of imposing upon those found guilty insignificant punishment that is fully inconsistent with the relevance of the crime,15 among others. 21. That the elimination of impunity through all legal means available is a key element for the eradication of extra-judicial executions, torture and other crimes.16 Judicial proceedings that continue until their closing and that meet their purpose are the clearest indication of 0 tolerance towards human rights violations and contributes to provide reparation to the victims and shows society that justice has been made. 22. That the Court has found that the duty to investigate should not be understood by the State as a mere formality preordained to be ineffective, or procedures performed merely for private interests, that depends on the procedural initiative of the victims or their relatives or the production of evidence by individuals.17 Therefore, effective investigations should be suitable to produce results or offering a response to the violations of the rights enshrined in the Convention. 23. That the efficacy of an investigation can be established by using international documents and rules that cover the various aspects of the investigation of abuses against human rights. For instance, the UN Principles on the Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Istanbul Protocol),18 and the UN Principles on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-legal, Arbitrary or Summary Executions, contained in the United Nations Manual on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-legal, Arbitrary or Summary Executions (Minnesota Protocol).19 24. That the Inter-American Court has stated that the determination of the truth in the context of the obligation to investigate a death that could have resulted from an extrajudicial execution should occur from the very first procedures in a diligent and prompt manner. In that regard, State authorities conducting an investigation for an extra-judicial, arbitrary or summary execution shall, inter alia, a) identify the victim; b) collect and preserve evidence related to the death in order to assist with any investigation; c) identify possible witnesses and obtain testimonies in relation to the death under investigation; d) determine the cause, manner, place and time of death, as well as any pattern or practice which may have brought about such death, and e) distinguish between natural death, accidental death, suicide and homicide. In addition, it is necessary that a thorough investigation of the crime scene be conducted and rigorous autopsies and analyses of 14 Cf. Case of Valle-Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia, supra note 6, para. 165. 15 Cf. Case of Vargas-Areco v. Paraguay, supra note 8, paras. 106 to 109. 16 Cf. Case of Ituango Massacres v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 1, 2006. Series C No. 148, para. 299; and Case of Montero Aranguren et al. (Detention Center of Catia) v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 5, 2006. Series C No. 150, para. 137; and Case of Vargas-Areco v. Paraguay, supra note 8, para. 81. 17 Cf. Case of Velázquez-Rodríguez, supra note 10, para. 177; Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panamá, supra note 10, para. 144; and Case of Valle-Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia, supra note 6, para. 100 and 157. 18 19 Cf. Case of Bayarri v. Argentina, supra note 11, para. 92. Cf. Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez v. Honduras. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 7, 2003. Series C No. 99, para. 127; Case of the Miguel Castro-Castro Prison, supra note 7, para. 383; and Case of Zambrano-Vélez et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 166, para. 121.