determine if they have constituted effective remedies for ensuring the right of access to justice of Mr. Valencia Hinojosa’s next of kin. For the purposes of analyzing the conduct of the State during said investigation, the Commission recalls that: The investigation by [the] judicial authorities of a State’s alleged violation of international obligations may face the [Commission and the] Court with the need to examine the related domestic proceedings. Based on the above, domestic proceedings must be considered as a whole and the duty of the international tribunal is to find out if all proceedings were carried out in compliance with international provisions. 140 b. Analysis 145. Having analyzed the investigation, the Commission notes that right from the initial stages their arose a series of situations that point to a lack of due diligence on the part of the State, particularly bearing in mind that, as was concluded above, the authorities that had control of the crime scene and the evidence, as well as those who pronounced on the criminal responsibility of the policemen involved in the death of Mr. Valencia, were members of the police themselves. 146. Thus, to begin with, the Commission notes that the crime scene was exposed to various members of the police. Although one of the policemen involved said that they withdrew from the scene "without touching anything," there is nothing in the information provided to suggest that it was cordoned off and secured. On this point, the Commission is surprised at some of the inconsistencies that emerge from the record, such as, for instance, that while the record of the removal of the corpse states that the cadaver was found in a “supine decubitus” position, that it lying face up, Police Corporal Manuel Mesías Pillajo said that when he reached and observed the body, it was in different position; that is, “face down" and, though he subsequently said that "he did not recall,” he noted “that he did not see its face.” 147. The Commission observes a number of other inconsistencies in the experts' reports that could suggest a difference of opinion as to what happened. The record of the removal of the corpse stated that the body presented a “circular wound in the right temple, a ‘wound’ orifice in the occipital bone.” Subsequently, the autopsy report indicated that the entry wound was “in the right temporal bone.” In addition, following the exhumation, the experts again said that they determined the entry wound based on "the occipital bone." However, the police judge himself requested that they correct themselves, given that the bone sample belonged to the "temporal" bone, in response to which, the experts—who were also policemen—said that they retracted themselves because the mistake was due to a "typing error by the secretary.” The Commission finds that the above discrepancies over whether the shot entered Mr. Valencia Hinojosa’s head from behind or from the side are troubling in a context in which it was the police experts themselves who confirmed, precisely on the basis of the expert evidence, the suicide theory. 148. The Commission also notes that in his report, the Provincial Police Commandant, who was at the scene, stated that the weapon “was lying on the floor by the left knee.” However, the photograph of the crime scene marked number 1 shows that the pistol is by the left foot. The Commission notes that although the reasons why the weapon allegedly fired with the right hand did not remain held in that hand at the moment of death were debated in the domestic proceeding, no determination was reached as to how, despite the theory that the weapon was fired with the right hand, it could have fallen on the left side of Mr. Valencia’s body in a straight line by the left foot. 149. The Commission also observes that the hypothesis emerged in the investigation that Mr. Valencia might have suffocated because of the appearance of alleged Tardieu spots. On this point, one of the 140I/A Court H.R., Case of Zambrano-Vélez et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 166, par. 142; Case of Lori Berenson Mejía v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2004. Series C No. 119, par. 133; Case of Myrna Mack Chang v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2003. Series C No. 101, par. 200; and Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez v. Honduras. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 7, 2003. Series C No. 99, par. 120.