73 without respecting the rules regarding detention, and he was taken in a clandestine manner to a detention center, where he was interrogated, tortured, and subsequently executed extra-legally by agents of the State (supra 97 to 99 and 109 to 111), with the attendant violation of the right to fair trial set forth Article 8 of the American Convention. 126. Judicial actions to elucidate the death of Juan Humberto Sánchez and punish those responsible have, on the whole, showed shortcomings in the investigation. For example, once his body was found there was no autopsy nor were photographs taken of the location of the body, because as the Justice of the Peace and witness Héctor Fortín said there were no financial resources for this type of steps. It should be underlined that the State itself affirmed that in this kind of situations those steps were not taken (supra 70.12 and 106.c), and thus in the sub judice case the evidence necessary to carry out a serious and effective investigation on what happened to Juan Humberto Sánchez was not available. 127. This Court deems that in cases where there have been extra-legal executions the State must conduct a serious, impartial and effective investigation of what happened. In this regard, the United Nations Manual on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-Legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions, or Minnesota Protocol, has set forth certain basic guidelines to conduct the respective investigations and establish whether the executions have been extra-legal, summary, and arbitrary.143 The Protocol has listed as minimum requirements for the investigation: identification of the victim, gathering and preserving evidence pertaining to the death so as to help in possible prosecution of those responsible; identification of possible witness and obtaining their statements regarding the death; determination of the cause, manner, place and time of death, as well as any pattern or practice that might have caused the death; establishing the distinction among natural death, suicide, and homicide; identification and capture of the person or persons involved in the death, and bringing the alleged perpetrators before a competent tribunal established by law. In this case, said parameters were not fulfilled. 128. The Court notes that in cases of extra-legal executions it is crucial for the competent authorities to conduct an exhaustive investigation of the scene, to examine the body of the victim, and for professional experts to perform an autopsy to establish the cause of death whenever possible, or to carry out a test that must also be rigorous, under the circumstances.144 In the case under discussion, the Court underlines that for various reasons the authorities did not take the necessary steps to preserve the evidence available at the scene of the crime and to perform an autopsy that might enable a serious and effective investigation of what happened, to ultimately punish those responsible. 129. Based on the criteria set forth regarding the subject-matter by this Court, and taking into account reasonable time in judicial proceedings, it can be said that the ongoing proceeding before the Justice of the Peace of Colomoncagua and the Second Court of First Instance of Intibucá exceeded the principle of a reasonable time embodied in the American Convention, as the three elements that must be taken 143 144 Cf. U.N. Doc E/ST/CSDHA/.12 (1991) Cf. Committee of Ministers of the Member States of the Council of Europe, Recommendation N. R (99) 3 on Harmonization of the Rules for Forensic Medical Autopsy.