69 about his or her fate. In this regard, the Court emphasizes that the obligation of the States to investigate cases of enforced disappearance is not only limited to the simple determination of the whereabouts or fate of the disappeared persons or to clarification of what happened, neither to the mere investigation leading to determination of the corresponding responsibilities and the eventual punishment of those responsible. Both aspects are correlated and must be present at any investigation of acts such as those of the instant case. 216. Regarding that mentioned in the preceding paragraph, the Court observes with concern that, in the domestic sphere, the scope and content of the general obligation to investigate the forced disappearance of persons is not taken into account. Thus, the Court highlights that, at the public hearing held during the processing of the criminal proceeding, Rebeca Ibsen asked the corresponding judge to “require the office of the Public Prosecutor to hand over the evidence found in [La Cuchilla cemetery], [because] it was in the hands of the Prosecutor’s office [and not] in the case file so that the Judiciary could examine it. Mrs. Rebeca Ibsen referred to remains that probably belonged to the body of Mr. José Luis Ibsen Peña. In this regard, the representative of the Public Prosecutor’s Office stated that “in [the] proceeding what [they] w[ere] trying to determine was the identity of those who were allegedly guilty of the murder of the persons who were the object of the investigation and [that] the purpose of the excavations [carried out] in La Cuchilla was to discover if they [were] really these persons, [and that] this became part of the proceedings because […], according to doctrine and law, [this was necessary] so that, after DNA testing, the remains could be returned to the next of kin to be given Christian burial, because the interest of the Public Prosecutor’s office lay in discovering the relationship between the accused and the events that occurred[ and therefore] it was investigating the situation.”252 217. In this regard, this Court has established that, in the context of the obligation to investigate a death, efforts to determine the truth effectively must be demonstrated diligently starting with the first measures.253 In this regard, the Court has outlined the guiding principles that must be observed when investigating a violent death. At the very least, the State authorities who conduct an investigation of this type must try, inter alia: (i) to identify the victim; (ii) to recover and preserve the body of evidence related to the death in order to assist any possible criminal investigation of the authors; (iii) to identify possible witnesses and obtain their testimony concerning the death under investigation; (iv) to determine the cause, manner, place and time of death, as well as any pattern or practice that could have caused the death, and (v) to distinguish between natural death, accidental death, suicide and murder. In addition, the scene of the crime must be examined thoroughly, and any human remains must undergo meticulous autopsies and analyses by competent professionals using the most appropriate procedures.254 252 Cf. Minute of the hearing to receive evidence from the parties, on June 17, 2007 (Case file 37/2000, Volume 22, folios 9469 to 9470 and 18277 to 18278). 253 Cf. Case of Servellón García et al. v. Honduras. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 21, 2006. Series C No. 152, para. 120; Case of Zambrano Vélez et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 166, para. 121, and Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico, supra note 60, para. 300. 254 Cf. Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez v. Honduras. Preliminary Exceptions, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 7, 2003. Series C No. 99, para. 127; Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras, supra note 11, para. 102, and Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico, supra note 60, para. 300.