105. In addition, throughout its case law and with regard to the scene of the crime, the Court has indicated that the investigators must, at the very least: (i) photograph the scene, any other physical evidence and the body as it was found and after it has been moved; (ii) gather and conserve the samples of blood, hair, fibers, threads and other clues; (iii) examine the area to look for footprints or any other trace that could be used as evidence, and (iv) prepare a detailed report with any observations regarding the scene, the measures taken by the investigators, and the storage assigned for all the evidence collected.132 The Court has also established that, when investigating a crime scene, this must be preserved in order to protect all the evidence.133 106. In this case, the Court observes that no steps were taken to verify different aspects of the version of the family members and other witnesses, such as reconstruction of the events, expert appraisals of the victims’ clothes, and evidence regarding the mud found in the victim’s mucous membrane, lungs and digestive system. Above all, there were flaws in the autopsies and in the police forensic inspections, because no photographs were taken of the corpses; the outlines of the corpses were not marked, and a detailed description of the autopsy procedure was not made that revealed the clothes worn. In addition, it was not proved that the victims had fired the weapons that were found at the scene of the crime because no tests were carried out on fingerprints or to verify if there was gunpowder residue on their hands. The State has not contested this in its arguments. 107. With regard to the measures taken to obtain evidence during the investigation, the State merely indicated that an extensive investigation was conducted supported by 87 probative elements, including expert appraisals and statements of family members and neighbors of the alleged victims. The Court considers that the mere number of probative elements presented in the proceedings was not sufficient to comply with the standard of due diligence. To the contrary, the failure to take important steps and obtain significant evidence, in particular in relation to the scene of the crime and the examination of the bodies, resulted in a breach of the due diligence required in an investigation. The Court finds that this conduct by the State violated the obligation of due diligence in the investigation. 108. Regarding the lines of investigation, the Court notes that statements by family members and other witnesses reveal, consistently, that Robert Ignacio Díaz Loreto’s body was full of mud and “sewage.” Similarly, the autopsy performed by Ligia García Mejía revealed that the corpse had a “moderate cerebral edema with compression grooves in […] the hippocampus and orbital lobes,” and “oral cavity with the presence on the gums of a black granular substance”134 which was also within the thorax, the respiratory tract, the teeth, the esophagus, the trachea and, according to the expert’s statement, “it was already entering the lungs.”135 Despite this, there is record that the authorities took any measures to analyze those findings or that they were taken into account in their lines of investigation when conducting inquiries into the facts of the case. 109. Similarly, in the cassation judgment of May 11, 2010, the Venezuelan Supreme Court of Justice established that the Appellate Court had not provided sufficient reasons for the hypothesis of legitimate defense or that the police officers were complying with their duty. 136 Cf. Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 16, 2009. Series C No. 205, para. 301, and Case of Villamizar Durán et al. v. Colombia, para. 176. 132 Cf. Case of the Landaeta Mejías Brothers et al. v. Venezuela, para. 254, and Case of Villamizar Durán et al. v. Colombia, para. 176. 133 134 Autopsy report No. 0146 of January 8, 2003 (evidence file, folio 6415) Record of the oral, public and unipersonal trial by the Fifth Trial Court of January 25, 2007 (evidence file, folios 860 to 866). 135 Cf. Judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice, Criminal Cassation Chamber of May 11, 2010 (evidence file, folios 6585 to 6618). 136 -33-