not the State’s actions in the course of the investigation, considered as a whole, adhered to the standards of due diligence required to satisfy the right to have access to justice. In other words, “it for the Court to determine whether or not the actions of a State organ, such as those in charge of the investigations, constitute a wrongful act [the international responsibility of the State] in light of the provisions of the Convention.”255 158. The Court will now proceed to analyze the effectiveness and due diligence of the domestic processes, taking into account: a) the different stages of the investigation of the facts; b) the criminal proceedings against the alleged perpetrators, and c) a reasonable time frame for the proceedings. All this is in light of the rights to a fair trial and judicial protection, provided for in Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof. B. 1. Due diligence in the investigation and clarification of the facts B.1.1. Preliminary judicial proceedings 159. In this regard, the Court has stated that, in the context of an investigation into a violent death, efficiency should be evident from the first procedures carried out with full diligence.256 The domestic legislation in force in Honduras at the time of the events also established guidelines on the procedures to be followed in the investigation of a homicide.257 The Court notes that the State failed to carry out certain procedures, as indicated by the Division of Visual Inspections, inasmuch as it did not protect the crime scene, which was contaminated by pedestrians and vehicles moving through it. (supra para. 50). 160. With respect to the crime scene and the collection of evidence, the judicial investigation of the facts was initiated by the Catacamas Magistrate’s Civil Court on the day after the death of Mr. Luna López, May 19, 1998. At 9:00 am, the Magistrate conducted an inspection at the crime scene (supra para. 47). Later, at approximately 4:00 pm, court officials visited the site in the company of the Prosecutor and agents of the Visual 255 Case of Castillo González et al., supra, para. 160. 256 Cf. Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez, supra, para. 127 and Case of Castillo González et al., supra, para. 152. In this regard, the Court has specified the guiding principles that must be observed in an investigation of a violent death. The state authorities conducting this type of investigation must attempt, at the very least: i) to identify the victim; ii) to recover and preserve evidence related to the death, for the purpose of assisting in any potential criminal investigation of those responsible; iii) identify possible witnesses and obtain their statements concerning the death being investigated; iv) establish the cause, manner, place and time of death, as well as any pattern or practice that could have caused the death, and v) draw a distinction between natural death, accidental death, suicide and homicide. In addition, it is necessary to conduct a thorough investigation of the crime scene. Autopsies and analyses of human remains should be rigorously carried out by competent professionals applying the most appropriate procedures. Cf. UN Manual for the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-Legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions (Protocol of Minnesota), Doc.E/ST/CSDHA/.12 (1991). 257 Cf. Law of the Public Prosecutor’s Office, supra, “Article 33... The following are obligations and functions of the Agents […] of the Public Prosecutor’s Office, assigned to the Magistrates Court of Criminal Matters […]: 1. Present themselves immediately at the place where a crime has been committed […] in order to find out at the crime scene who could have committed the offense, who could have witnessed it, and all the elements that could help to establish the facts and to identify those responsible […], and Article 43. The Division [of Criminal Investigation] shall have the following attributes: 1. […] to identify and apprehend those presumed responsible; and, to gather, ensure and organize evidence, background information and elements necessary to accurately, objectively and efficiently establish the facts. 2. Conserve all items related to the punishable act and the state of evidence untouched until the competent authority arrives at the scene […].” Cf. Code of Criminal Procedures, supra, “Article 182. The investigating judge should conduct all the investigations conducive to establishing the corpus deliciti, taking advantage of the first moments to collect evidence and prevent its disappearance or prevent the perpetrators or those involved in the crime from going into hiding or entering into agreements to prepare statements that result in impunity. Therefore, the practice of all investigations aimed at clarifying the truth of material facts of the process should be undertaken immediately […].” 48