forensic evidence, the Court has affirmed in its case law243 and in keeping with the United Nations Manual on the Prevention and Investigation of Extra-Legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions (Minnesota Protocol) that various basic and essential measures must be taken to conserve indications and evidence that may contribute to the success of the investigation. In this regard, it has defined the guiding principles that must be observed in an investigation into a violent death.244 151. The Court has stipulated that State authorities conducting an investigation of this type shall, at a minimum, seek, inter alia: (i) to identify the victim; (ii) to recover and preserve evidentiary material related to the death to aid in any potential prosecution of those responsible; (iii) to identify possible witnesses and obtain statements from them concerning the death; (iv) to determine the cause, manner, location and time of death, as well as any pattern or practice that may have brought about the death, and (v) to distinguish between natural death, accidental death, suicide and homicide. In addition, the scene of the crime must be processed thoroughly, and rigorous autopsies and analyses of human remains must be performed by competent professionals, using the most appropriate procedures. 245 152. The Court emphasizes that the proper processing of the crime scene is the starting point of the investigation and, therefore, it is determinant to clarify the nature, circumstances and characteristics of the crime, and the participants in the act. This is why it must be processed by professionals aware of the importance of their actions, the preservation of the crime scene, the measures to be taken at the scene, and the recovery and preservation of the evidence. 246 The Court has indicated in its case law that a State may be held responsible for failing “to order, practice or assess evidence that would have been very important for the proper clarification of the murders.”247 Regarding the scene of the crime, the investigators should, at least, photograph the scene, and any other physical evidence, and the body as it was found and after it has been moved; any samples of blood, hair, fibers, threads or other clues should be collected and preserved; the area should be examined for shoe impressions or any other impressions of an evidentiary nature, and a report should be made detailing any observation at the scene, actions of investigators, and disposition of all evidence recovered. The area around the body should be closed off; only the investigator and his team should be allowed entry into the area.248 Until this is done, any contamination of the scene must be avoided and permanent custody maintained.249 One of the most delicate actions at the site of the discovery of the body is the handling of the corpse, which should only be handled in the presence of professionals, who should examine it and move it appropriately, based on its condition.250 Cf. Inter alia, Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”), supra, paras. 301 and 310; Case of Luna López v. Honduras. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 10, 2013. Series C No. 269, para. 164; Case of the Human Rights Defender et al., supra, para. 204, and Case of the Santa Bárbara Peasant Community v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 1, 2015. Series C No. 299, para. 228. 244 Cf. Case of the Human Rights Defender et al. v. Guatemala, supra, para. 204. 245 Cf. Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez v. Honduras. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 7, 2003. Series C No. 99, para. 127, and Case of the Human Rights Defender et al. v. Guatemala, supra, para. 205. 246 Cf. Case of the Human Rights Defender et al. v. Guatemala, supra para. 209. 247 Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits, supra, para. 230, and Case of Veliz Franco et al. v. Guatemala, supra, para. 195. 248 Cf. Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico, supra, para. 301, and Case of the Human Rights Defender et al. v. Guatemala, supra, para. 206, citing the United Nations Manual on the Prevention and Investigation of Extra-Legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions (Minnesota Protocol), supra. 249 Cf. Case of Veliz Franco et al. v. Guatemala, supra, para. 192, citing the United Nations Manual on the Prevention and Investigation of Extra-Legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions (Minnesota Protocol), supra, and Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. Office for Mexico. Protocolo Modelo para la investigación forense de muertes sospechosas de haberse producido por violación de los derechos humanos [Model Protocol for the forensic investigation of deaths suspected of having occured owing to human rights violations], Proyecto MEX/00/AH/10. 250 Cf. Case of Veliz Franco et al. v. Guatemala, supra, para. 192, citing Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. Office for Mexico. Protocolo Modelo para la investigación forense de muertes sospechosas de haberse producido por violación de los derechos humanos, supra. 243 55