commissions or ombudsman’s offices, such as in this case, do not complement or replace the State’s obligation to establish the truth and investigate crimes through judicial processes. 310 Therefore, without diminishing the efforts of the State and the actions undertaken by the Ombudsman’s Office, the Court considers that the analysis of the State’s obligation to conduct diligent, thorough and effective investigations of a crime must be circumscribed to the actions undertaken in the criminal sphere. B.1. Regarding the violent death of A.A. 203. In order to determine whether the State fully discharged its obligation to investigate the facts of this case, it is necessary to examine the various steps it took after the discovery of Mr. A.A.’s lifeless body, with the aim of elucidating the facts and identifying those responsible for his violent death. The Court will examine the dispute between the parties under the following headings: a) due diligence in the initial procedures of the investigation; b) due diligence in relation to the logical lines of investigation, in the gathering and processing of evidence, and reasonable time; c) protection for justice operators, investigators, witnesses and relatives of victims, and d) conclusions. B.1.1. Due diligence in the initial procedures of the investigation 204. The Court has established that, in the context of an investigation into a violent death, efficiency should be evident from the first procedures carried out with full diligence. 311As to the management of the crime scene, the handling of the victim’s body, the autopsy, and maintaining the chain of custody for every item of forensic evidence, in its case law 312 and following the United Nations Manual on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-Legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions (Minnesota Protocol), the Court has held that certain basic and essential procedures must be carried out to preserve the elements of proof and evidence which could contribute to the success of the investigation. In this regard, it has specified the guiding principles that should be observed when investigating a violent death. Consequently, the Court considers that the State’s argument questioning the evaluation of the investigations in light of the Minnesota Protocol (supra para. 198) is unfounded. 205. The Court has specified that the State authorities who conduct an investigation of this nature must, at least, attempt to: i) identify the victim; ii) gather and preserve evidence related to the death, so as to assist in a potential criminal investigation of those responsible; iii) identify possible witnesses and take their statements regarding the death under investigation; iv) determine the cause, manner, place and time of death, as well as any pattern or practice that may have caused the death, and v) distinguish between natural death, accidental death, suicide and homicide. It is also essential that competent professionals thoroughly investigate the crime scene, carry out autopsies and analyses of human remains, in a rigorous manner, and using the most appropriate procedures. 313 206. In addition, international standards indicate that, regarding the crime scene, investigators must, at the very least: photograph the crime scene and any other physical evidence, and the body as it was found and after it was moved; gather and conserve all samples of blood, hair, fibers, threads and other clues; examine the area to look for footprints or any other trace of evidence and prepare a detailed report with any observations regarding the scene, the measures taken by the investigators and the storage of all the evidence collected. The Court has also established that when investigating a crime scene, the area around the body must be cordoned off and access to it forbidden, except to the investigator and his team. 314 310 Cf. Mutatis mutandis, Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. v. Chile. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 154, para. 150, and Case of The Dos Erres Massacre v. Guatemala, supra, para. 232. 311 Cf. Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez v. Honduras, supra, para. 127, and Case of Luna López v. Honduras, supra, para. 159. 312 Cf. Case of Luna López v. Honduras, supra, para. 151, and Case of Castillo González et al. v. Venezuela, supra, para. 152. 313 Cf. Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez v. Honduras, supra, para. 127, and Case of Castillo González et al., supra, para. 152. 314 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, citing the United Nations Manual on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-Legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions, Doc. E/ST/CSDHA/.12 (1991). 61