criminal investigation into sexual violence the investigative actions must be coordinated and documented and the evidence handled diligently, taking sufficient samples, performing tests to determine the possible authorship of the facts, protecting other evidence such as the victim’s clothes, conducting an immediate investigation of the crime scene and ensuring the proper chain of custody.239 148. Accordingly, the first stages of the investigation may be especially crucial in cases of a gender-based murder of a woman, because possible errors in procedures such as autopsies and the collection and conservation of physical evidence may prevent or hinder the possibility of proving relevant aspects, such as sexual violence. In the case of autopsies in a context of gender-based murder, the Court has specified that it is necessary to carry out a careful examination of the genital and surrounding areas to look for signs of sexual abuse, and also to preserve oral, vaginal and rectal liquid, and the external and pubic hair of the victim. 240 In addition, the Court has indicated that States have the obligation to enact laws or implement the required measures, in accordance with Article 2 of the American Convention and Article 7(c) of the Convention of Belém do Pará, that allow the authorities to conduct an investigation with due diligence in cases of presumed violence against women.241 149. On this basis, taking into account the arguments of the parties and the Commission, the Court must analyze whether the way in which the investigation into the death of Claudina Isabel Velásquez Paiz has been implemented to date constitutes a violation of the obligations arising from the rights recognized in Articles 8(1), 24 and 25(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, as well as Article 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará. To this end, in this chapter, the Court will examine the following aspects: B.1. Irregularities in the investigation following the discovery of the body of Claudina Velásquez Paiz and subsequent actions of the State officials; B.2. Lack of due diligence regarding logical lines of investigation, collection and obtaining of evidence, and reasonable time; B.3. Discrimination due to stereotyping and an investigation that lacked a gender perspective, and B.4. General conclusion B.1. Irregularities in the investigation following the discovery of the body of Claudina Velásquez Paiz and subsequent actions of State officials 150. The Court has established that, in the context of the obligation to investigate a death, real determination to uncover the truth must be demonstrated starting with due diligence in the initial procedures.242 On this point, in relation to the processing of the crime scene, the handling and removal of the victim’s corpse, the autopsy, and the chain of custody of each piece of Cf. Case of Fernández Ortega et al. v. Mexico, supra, para. 194, and Case of Espinoza Gonzáles v. Peru, supra, para. 242. 240 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. 310; Case of Veliz Franco et al. v. Guatemala, supra, para. 188, and United Nations Manual on the Prevention and Investigation of Extra-Legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions (Minnesota Protocol ), UN Doc. E/ST/CSDHA/.12 (1991). 241 Cf. Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico, supra, para. 388, and Case of Veliz Franco et al. v. Guatemala, supra, para. 189. This may be done by standardizing protocols, manuals, expert services and the administration of justice used for the investigation of all crimes related to disappearances, sexual violence and the murder of women in accordance with the Istanbul Protocol, the United Nations Manual on the Prevention and Investigation of Extra-Legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions, and international standards for the search for missing persons based on a gender perspective. 242 Cf. Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160, para. 383, and Case of the Human Rights Defender et al. v. Guatemala, supra, para. 204. 239 54