75 autopsies were performed, and (c) the DNA testing, identification and return of the remains. (a) Irregularities in elaboration of the report on the discovery of the bodies, preservation of the crime scene, and collection and handling of evidence 298. The Commission alleged that “the record of the removal of the bodies does not describe the methods used to collect and preserve evidence” and that the “authorities associated some of the evidence found […] with certain bodies […] because of its proximity to the bodies, although it was all found over an extensive area.” The representatives alleged that the authorities did not search the place adequately. They added that from all the “objects and evidence observed on the site, no greater results than the identification of some of their blood types were obtained, without subsequent comparison with other elements and with the bodies.” Furthermore, both the Commission and the representatives stated that there was no “official document recording where the evidence was held” or the names of officials responsible for it. The representatives added that “[n]o order or sequence was followed in order to identify the evidence found,” which resulted “in contradictions and inconsistencies in the results of the expert appraisals.” 299. The irregularities acknowledged by the State during the first stage of the investigations included “[t]he inappropriate preservation of the site of the discovery,” the failure to adopt “necessary measures” to ensure that the scene of the crime “was not contaminated,” “the fact that the evidence collected was not processed exhaustively,” and that “the items of evidence were not appraised by experts.” 300. This Court has established that the obligation to investigate a death means that the effort to determine the truth with all diligence must be evident as of the very first procedures.308 In this regard, the Tribunal has defined the guiding principles to be observed in an investigation into a violent death. The State authorities who conduct an investigation of this type must try, at the very least, inter alia: (i) to identify the victim; (ii) to recover and preserve the probative material related to the death in order to assist in any potential criminal investigation of those responsible; (iii) to identify possible witnesses and obtain their statements in relation to the death under investigation; (iv) to determine the cause, manner, place and time of death, as well as any pattern or practice that could have caused the death, and (v) to distinguish between natural death, accidental death, suicide and homicide. In addition, the scene of the crime must be searched exhaustively, and autopsies and tests of the human remains must be performed rigorously by competent professionals using the most appropriate procedures.309 301. In addition, the international standards indicate that, regarding the crime scene, the investigators must, at the very least: photograph the scene and any other physical evidence, and the body as it was found and after it has been moved; gather and conserve the samples of blood, hair, fibers, threads and other clues; examine the area to look for footprints or any other trace that could be used as evidence, and 308 Cf. Case of Servellón García et al. v. Honduras. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 21, 2006. Series C No. 152, para. 120; Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru, supra note 248, para. 383, and Case of Zambrano Vélez et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 166, para. 121. 309 Cf. Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez v. Honduras, supra note 305, para. 127; Case of Escué Zapata v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 165, para. 106, and Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras, supra note 190, para. 102.