164. As regards the management of the crime scene and the handling of the victim’s body, this Court has held that certain basic and essential procedures must be carried out to preserve elements of proof and that which could contribute to the success of the investigation,259 such as the autopsy260 and official removal of the corpse.261 165. With respect to the foregoing, the Court notes that in the actions taken immediately after the incident there were certain omissions as regards cordoning off the area, the collection of evidence, the procedure to remove the body and the respective autopsy. Nevertheless, the Court reiterates that the investigation should be assessed as a whole, considering that it is an obligation of means and not of results (supra para. 155) and “bearing in mind that it is not up to the Court, in principle, to decide on the admissibility of investigative measures. Likewise, it is necessary to consider whether the occurrence of certain omissions or delays is sufficient to constitute international responsibility by the State. This must also be assessed in light of the matter that must be investigated, given that, in this case, the State’s role in the murder of [Carlos Luna López] has not been proven.”262 166. The investigation of the facts allowed for the recovery and preservation of material evidence and the determination of the manner, place and time of the attack. The State carried out several procedures during the initial investigation to identify those presumably responsible for the crime, especially through the collection of several testimonies that led to the identification of the presumed material authors of the crime. In particular, by July 1998, Mr. Oscar Aurelio Rodríguez had been identified as the presumed material author of the crime, had made a statement before the Magistrates Court on October 22, 1998, and was then arrested (supra para. 58). Furthermore, following the statements received in February, 2001, which identified Mr. Ítalo Lemus as the alleged perpetrator, on February 21, 2001, the Magistrates Court issued the corresponding arrest warrant. However, he had evaded justice. 259 Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”), supra, para. 301 and Cf. Manual for the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-Legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions, supra. 260 Cf. Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”), supra, para. 310, which indicates that “the purpose of an autopsy is, at the very least, to gather information to identify the dead person, and hour, date, cause and form of death. An autopsy must respect certain basic formal procedures, such as indicating the date and time it starts and ends as well as the place where it is performed and the name of the official who performs it. Furthermore, inter alia, it is necessary to photograph the body comprehensively; to x-ray the body, the bag or the covering, and then undress it and record any injuries.” Cf. Manual for the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-Legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions, supra. Likewise, Article 52 of the Law of the Public Prosecutor’s Office, supra, in force at the time of the facts, established that “the Division of Forensic Medicine is responsible for conducting autopsies in accordance with the law; and carrying out examinations of a physical, clinical, physiological, psychiatric, psychological or any other nature, within the field of forensic medicine, as required by the Republic’s Prosecutor General’s Office, or any other of the divisions, department or agencies of the Public Prosecutor’s Office and the judicial bodies.” Similarly, Article 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure states “[w]henever it is considered appropriate and practicable to perform, the Judge should order an autopsy and the corresponding exhumation. […] [T]he Judge shall request cooperation from those in charge of State hospitals when the person has died or arrives there deceased.” Regarding the lack of the autopsy, the Court notes that in his statement César Luna Valle, son of Mr. Luna López, states that “my father was in the back of the pick-up truck; I only observed […] blood where [his] body was. I asked if they were able to perform an autopsy, but they told me that the autopsy is done for the bullet […] We then took my father to the city [of Catacamas and] Doctor Adalid Hernández prepared [...] my father [for the wake]” (File of attachments to the State’s response, page 6721). 261 With respect to the removal of the body, Article 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedures, in force at the time of the events, indicated that “[t]he body shall not be removed until a judicial inspection has been carried out to examine it thoroughly, [specifying] the condition in which it was [found] and any injuries, bruises and other signs of violence that might be present.” 262 Case of Castillo González et al., supra, para. 161. 50