B.1. Due diligence in the investigation 103. Regarding the gathering and conservation of probative elements, the Court has indicated that “the procedures conducted to investigate the facts must be assessed as a whole and, in principle, it is not for the Court to decide on the satisfactory nature of the investigation measures.”123 Indeed, it is not incumbent on the Court “to substitute for the domestic jurisdiction establishing the specific methods to investigate and prosecute a particular case in order to obtain a better or more effective result; rather, it verifies whether the international obligations of the State derived […] from the Convention have been violated by the measures taken in the domestic sphere.”124 Moreover, this analysis is only required when there has been an evident or flagrant absence of the basic procedures established in domestic law that should be conducted in this type of situation that violates the duty of due diligence. 125 The Court is also able, under its complementary and reinforcing jurisdiction, to examine domestic investigation procedures,126 and this may lead it to determine that there have been flaws in due diligence.127 Nevertheless, this will only be appropriate when it is clear that the alleged flaws could have affected the investigation as a whole. 128 Thus, it should not be assumed that flaws in isolated investigation measures have had a negative impact on the whole proceedings if, despite them, the investigation was effective in determining the facts.129 104. The Court also recalls that, under the obligation to investigate a death, an genuine effort to determine the facts must be evident starting with the diligence shown in the initial measures. When investigating a violent death, the early stages of the investigation are crucially important, as is the negative impact that omissions and irregularities at such stages may have on the real and effective possibility of elucidating the facts.130 In this regard, the Court has specified the guiding principles that must be observed in an investigation into a violence death, as in this case. The minimum steps that the state authorities who conduct an investigation of this type must take include: (i) identification of the victim; (ii) collection and preservation of probative elements related to the death in order to contribute to any potential investigation of those responsible; (iii) identification of possible witnesses, obtaining their statements concerning the death that is being investigated; (iv) determination of the cause, manner, place and time of death, as well as any pattern or practice that could have caused the death, and (v) distinguishing between natural death, accidental death, suicide and homicide. The autopsies and analysis of human remains must be performed rigorously, by competent professionals, using the most appropriate procedures. 131 Cf. Case of Castillo González et al. v. Venezuela. Merits. Judgment of November 27, 2012. Series C No. 256, para. 153, and Case of Alvarado Espinoza et al. v. Mexico. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 28, 2018. Series C No. 370, para. 213. 123 Cf. Case of Nogueira de Carvalho et al. v. Brazil. Preliminary objections and merits. Judgment of November 28, 2006. Series C No. 161, para. 80, and Case of Alvarado Espinoza et al. v. Mexico, para. 213. 124 Cf. Case of Carvajal Carvajal et al. v. Colombia, para. 124, and Case of Villamizar Durán et al. v. Colombia, para. 178. 125 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala, para. 222, and Case of Carvajal Carvajal et al. v. Colombia, para. 117. 126 Cf. Case of Yarce et al. v. Colombia, para. 282, and Case of Arrom Suhurt et al. v. Paraguay. Merits. Judgment of May 13, 2019. Series C No. 377, para. 143. 127 Cf. Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña v. Bolivia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 1, 2010. Series C No. 217, para. 172, and Case of Arrom Suhurt et al. v. Paraguay, para. 143. 128 Cf. Case of Luna López v. Honduras. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 10, 2013. Series C No. 269, para. 167, and Case of Arrom Suhurt et al. v. Paraguay, para. 143. 129 Cf. Case of Servellón García et al. v. Honduras, Judgment of September 21, 2006. Series C No. 152, para. 120, and Case of Carvajal Carvajal et al. v. Colombia, para. 117. 130 Cf. Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez v. Honduras, Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 7, 2003. Series C No. 99, para. 127, and Case of Ruíz Fuentes et al. v. Guatemala, para. 178. 131 -32-