investigation was prepared on December 21, 2004 (supra para. 103). Thus, no proper report was prepared giving details of any observations at the crime scene, or the actions taken by investigators and the handling of the evidence collected. Nor were any photographs taken at the crime scene to adequately document the history of each item of evidence. f) Although experts of the Crime Scene Department of the Public Prosecution Service prepared a sketch of the site where Mr. A.A.’s body was found (supra para. 110), it was prepared belatedly, more than four months after the events, and did not specify the items found at the crime scene. 209. In this regard, the Court emphasizes that the correct management of the crime scene is the starting point for an investigation and, therefore, it is crucial in clarifying the nature, circumstances and characteristics of the crime, as well as those involved in it. Consequently, it must be managed by professionals who understand the importance of their actions and are trained in the preservation of a crime scene, the activities that form part of it, and in the gathering and preservation of the evidence. 210. The Court also finds flaws in the manner in which the results of the legal autopsy performed on Mr. A.A.’s body were presented in the first report on December 22, 2004, determining the cause of death. An extended report, dated May 10, 2005, specified the approximate time of death, the characteristics of the gunshot wounds, the distance at which the weapon was fired, the trajectory of the bullets in the body, the basic and direct cause of death and the manner of death. According to the extended report, dated August 3, 2006, the two bullet fragments extracted from the body were sent to the Public Prosecution Service for their respective analysis, and a third bullet fragment could not be extracted through the conventional autopsy because no radiological equipment was available to locate it (supra para. 107). Therefore, although the autopsy was carried out on December 20, 2004, it was not until August 3, 2006, that the information on the cause, manner, place and approximate time of death became available. In other words, during a period of one year and seven months the results were presented in an incomplete, fragmented manner and without using the appropriate procedures. 211. Similarly, the Court notes inconsistencies in establishing the time of Mr. A.A.’s death. In the preliminary report of the investigation of December 21, 2004, the investigating agent of the Criminal Investigation Service of Precinct 31 of the National Civil Police of Escuintla gave the probable time of death as 10:45 hours. This is consistent with the Assistant Prosecutor’s record of the removal of the body, on December 20, 2004, which states that this procedure was carried out at 11:30 hours. However, Mr. A.A.’s death certificate shows the time of death as 12:30 hours, 321while the extended autopsy report of May 10, 2005, stated that at the time of the autopsy (13:00 hours.) approximately 3 or 4 hours could have elapsed since his death. 322 In this regard, no action was taken to correct these inconsistencies, since the rectification proceeding was not activated in accordance with the legal requirements in force at the time. 323 All this has hindered efforts to clearly establish the approximate time of Mr. A.A.’s death. 212. Consequently, the Court concludes that the following irregularities occurred in this case: i) the circumstances in which the body was found were not specified; ii) the crime scene was not managed correctly, nor was the body removed and handled properly; iii) certain items of evidence were not collected at the crime scene; iv) the chain of custody for items of forensic evidence was broken; (v) no proper report of the investigation was prepared; and vi) there were irregularities in preparing the sketch at the site where the body was found; there were weaknesses and inconsistencies in the manner in which the 321 Cf. Death certificate of Mr. A.A. (File of attachments to submission brief, page 847). Cf. Report of December 21, 2004 (File of attachments to submission brief, pages 916 to 918); Proceedings of December 20, 2004 before the Assistant of the District Prosecutor’s Office of Santa Lucía Cotzumalguapa (File of attachments to submission brief, page 939); Death certificate of A.A. (File of attachments to submission brief, page 847), and Extended Autopsy Report No. 225/04, Forensic Medicine, Judicial Investigation Body (File of attachments to submission brief, pages 880 and 881). 323 In this regard, during the public hearing, a Prosecutor assigned to the case explained that, according to the Voluntary Jurisdiction Law, Decree Law 107, “to make that type of correction, a special procedure must be followed. I recall […] that at the time, our civil procedural law established that corrections of form could not be made de officio and that corrections of substance had to be authorized by a judge, and as a result nothing was done.” Cf. Statement rendered by E.M., a prosecutor assigned to the case, before the Inter-American Court at the public hearing held on February 5, 2014. 322 63