investigation, 140 which must be conducted within a reasonable period of time. 141 This implies the right of victims and their families to have State authorities initiate proceedings against the alleged perpetrators of these crimes; and, where applicable, apply the corresponding punishment, as well as provide reparations for the damages suffered.142 76. The Court has found that the duty to investigate with due diligence means that inquiries must be made using all legal measures available and must be aimed at determining the truth. 143 Likewise, the Commission and the Court have found that in cases of human rights violations, the State can be found responsible if it fails to order and conduct the pertinent evidence collection in keeping with its due diligence duty, and that the investigation must be aimed at exploring all possible lines of investigation to enable the identification of the perpetrators of the violation.144 77. In order to ensure due diligence through an exhaustive and impartial investigation of a death that took place under suspicious circumstances involving State agents, the Commission has emphasized the relevance of the standards contained in the Minnesota Protocol, which include: Identifying the victim; collecting and preserving evidence related to the death; identifying potential witnesses and securing their statements; determining the cause, manner, location, and time of death, as well as any pattern or practice that may have caused the death; distinguishing between natural death, suicide, and homicide; identifying and apprehending the person or persons involved in the death; and bringing the alleged perpetrators before a competent court as established by law. 145 According to those standards, “When necessary, and subject to the consent of the individual(s) concerned, investigators should take steps to protect an interviewee and others from illtreatment or intimidation as a consequence of providing information.”146 78. As a general principle regarding autopsies, the Minnesota Protocol also establishes that the job of clinical doctors is, among other things, to help ensure that the cause and circumstances of the death are revealed so they can present conclusions on the cause of death and the circumstances that contributed to it. Along these lines, the Protocol recognizes that there are few cases in which the cause of death can be determined by an autopsy alone without additional information on the death. Thus, the autopsy report must include a list of the injuries found and offer an interpretation of them. The Protocol underscores the particular importance in these types of autopsies of a photographic record, comprised of both photographs apt for documentation and independent review, and full-body X-rays.147 79. Lastly, regarding the principle of a reasonable period of time established in Article 8.1 of the American Convention, the Inter-American Court has established that that it is necessary to take into account three elements to determine the reasonableness of the period in conducting proceedings: (a) the complexity of the matter; (b) the procedural activity of the party involved; and (c) the conduct of judicial authorities.148 The Commission and the Court have also found it necessary to take into account the interest affected by the delay.149 I/A Ct. H.R. Case of García Prieto et al. Judgment of November 20, 2007, para. 101; Case of the Gómez-Paquiyauri Brothers. Judgment of July 8, 2004, para. 146; Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz, Judgment of July 10, 2007, para. 130. 141 I/A Ct. H.R. Case of Bulacio v. Argentina. Judgment of September 18, 2003, para. 114; Case of the “La Rochela Massacre.” Judgment of May 11, 2007, para. 146; Case of Miguel Castro Castro Prison. Judgment of November 25, 2006, para. 382. 142 I/A Ct. H.R. Case of García Prieto et al. Judgment of November 20, 2007, para. 103; Case of Bulacio v. Argentina. Judgment of September 18, 2003, para. 114; and Case of Miguel Castro Castro Prison. Judgment of November 25, 2006, para. 382. 143 See I/A Ct. H.R. Case of García Prieto et al. Judgment of November 20, 2007, para. 101. 144 IACHR. Report No. 25/09. Merits. Sebastião Camargo Filho (Brazil), March 19, 2009, para. 109; I/A Ct. H.R, Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán-Morales et al.). Judgment of November 19, 1999, para. 230; Case of J. v. Peru. Judgment of November 27, 2013, para. 344, citing I/A Ct. H.R, Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez v. Honduras. Judgment of June 7, 2003, para. 128). 145 I/A Ct. H.R. Caso Ortiz Hernández et al. v. Venezuela. Judgment of August 22, 2017, para. 161. 146 UN. Minnesota protocol on the investigation of potentially unlawful death (2016), para. 86. 147 Id. at paras. 148-182 and 255, 264, 266. 148 I/A Ct. H.R. Case of Vargas Areco v. Paraguay. Judgment of September 26, 2006, para. 196; Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia. Judgment of July 1, 2006, para. 289; Case of Baldeón García v. Peru. Judgment of April 6, 2006, para. 151. 149 I/A Ct. H.R. Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia. Judgment of November 27, 2008, para. 155. 140 17