207. Likewise, due diligence in the legal and medical investigation of a death requires that the chain of custody for each item of forensic evidence be safeguarded. 315 The Court has specified that this involves keeping a precise written record, complemented, as applicable, by photographs and other graphic elements, to document the history of each item of evidence as it passes through the hands of the different investigators responsible for the case. The chain of custody can extend beyond the trial, sentencing and conviction of the accused, given that old evidence, duly preserved, could help exonerate someone who has been erroneously convicted. The exceptions to the foregoing are the positively identified remains of victims, which may be returned to their families for burial, on condition that they cannot be cremated and may be exhumed for new autopsies. 316 208. The Court has confirmed the following irregularities in the initial procedures of the investigation: a) The file contains no information as to how investigators learned of the discovery of the body, i.e. the identity of the person(s) who reported the crime and the circumstances in which the body was found. It does not establish whether details were taken of the vehicle parked at the crime scene, whether the area was protected or cordoned off or whether inspections were conducted with the necessary thoroughness to identify details such as the state of the clothing on the body, or if there were any blood stains, hairs, fibers, threads or other clues on the victim’s body. Therefore, the crime scene was not managed correctly. b) The personal effects found on A.A., the bicycle he was riding and a bag with the logo of the local family grocery store and its contents, were handed over to his son G.A., who went to the site and identified the body. 317 In other words, they were not collected as evidence. c) Mr. A.A.’s clothing “was not packaged nor were details taken [of it]” and it was discarded. 318 On this point, it is important to emphasize that on May 4, 2005, the Assistant Prosecutor of Santa Lucía Cotzumalguapa informed the agent of the Human Rights Prosecutor that “[t]he victim was taken to the morgue with the same clothing he wore” and that “[n]one of the victim’s clothes were removed.” Specifically, he stated “[a]t a simple glance no clues were found on the items of clothing; however this detail can only be determined by an expert in the matter” (supra para. 111). Consequently, since no evidence was collected, there was no opportunity to conduct an expert assessment to analyze those items of clothing. d) Despite the fact that the Assistant Prosecutor of Santa Lucía Cotzumalguapa had ordered the body to be taken to the local morgue for the legal autopsy (supra para. 102), an officer of the National Civil Police of Santa Lucía Cotzumalguapa who went to the crime scene explained that “because the morgue was under construction, [the body of] the victim was taken to the Santísima Trinidad funeral home in Santa Lucía Cotzumalguapa,” 319 in a vehicle driven by an employee of the funeral home, 320 with no evidence that it was guarded. Thus, the chain of custody for A.A.’s body and the evidence on it was broken. e) When the investigating agent assigned by the Criminal Investigation Service of Precinct 31 of the National Civil Police of Escuintla arrived at the crime scene, “the body had already been removed.” Consequently, based on the information available at that time, and without performing a visual inspection, a preliminary report on the 315 Cf. Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico, supra, 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). 316 Cf. Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico, supra, para. 305. 317 Cf. Letter of December 20, 2004, from the Chief of Substation No. 31-43 of Escuintla to the District Prosecutor of the Public Prosecution Service (File of attachments to submission brief, page 940); Brief of May 4, 2005 of the Assistant Prosecutor of Santa Lucía Cotzumalguapa, to the Assistant of the Office of the Human Rights Prosecutor of the Public Prosecution Service (File of attachments to submission brief, page 855), and Statement rendered by an agent of the National Civil Police on May 9, 2005 (File of attachments to submission brief, pages 860 to 862). 318 Cf. Extended Autopsy Report submitted on May 13, 2005 (File of attachments to submission brief, pages 880 to 881). 319 Cf. Statement rendered by an agent of the National Civil Police on May 9, 2005 (File of attachments to submission brief, pages 860 to 862). 320 Cf. Letter of December 20, 2004, from the Chief of Substation No. 31-43 of Escuintla to the District Prosecutor of the Public Prosecution Service (File of attachments to submission brief, page 940). 62