68 any insects present.285 195. In its case law, the Court has also indicated that a State may be held responsible for failing “to order, obtain or assess evidence that would have been extremely important for the proper elucidation of a murder.”286 196. The Court has verified the following: a) The State authorities failed to take adequate measures to safeguard the site where María Isabel’s body was found and to avoid the loss of evidence and the contamination of areas near the crime scene from which useful evidence might have been collected (infra para. 197). The same authorities indicated that the scene was “contaminated” and that, when the site inspection was carried out, it was already contaminated287 (supra para. 101); b) When removing the body, in view of the existence of the evident signs of abuse or violence on the victim’s body, the authorities failed to request that the pertinent tests be performed during the autopsy (such as vaginal and rectal swabs)288 to determine whether María Isabel Veliz Franco had been a victim of sexual assault289 (supra para. 110), this omission was later classified as “unfortunate”290 by the State agents in charge of investigating the case. There was also a failure to verify the existence of semen in her body. The autopsy report dated February 13, 2002, merely indicated with regard to the examination of the abdominal area that the genital organs were “normal” (supra para. 111). Even though the victim’s clothes were examined by the expert with negative results for the presence of semen, this examination was performed after the clothes had been in her mother’s possession, so that they had been contaminated (supra para. 105 and infra para. 197); c) The site inspection report and the record of the removal of the corpse 291 prepared by Assistant Prosecutor I of Mixco Agency No. 5 are incomplete and 285 Cf. United Nations Model Protocol for a Legal Investigation of Extra-legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions (Minnesota Protocol), supra; and Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”), supra, para. 310, and Case of Luna López, supra, footnote 261. 286 Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.). Merits, supra, para. 349. 287 During the site inspection carried out on December 18, 2001, the expert determined that the scene of the crime had been processed and contaminated. Cf. Site inspection report issued by the expert of the Site Inspection Section of the Bureau of Criminal Investigation of the National Civil Police, supra. Expert witness José Mario Nájera Ochoa referred to the way in which forensic procedures were carried out and indicated that: (a) the Public Prosecution Service reported the crime (to the monitoring unit in the case of the Metropolitan area or directly to the prosecutors in the district prosecution offices), and (b) the team went to the scene of the crime; when they arrived, other individuals were already present: firemen, police etc. and they had usually contaminated the crime scene. Cf. Expert opinion provided by José Mario Nájera Ochoa, supra. 288 On February 27, 2006, Assistant Prosecutor I of Mixco Agency No. 5 sent a note to the Judiciary’s forensic physician who performed the autopsy, indicating that, when the record of the removal of the body was prepared, “he was not asked to take vaginal and rectal swabs or nail scraping from the deceased,” and asking whether he had done so ex officio; to which the latter replied negatively and indicated that he had not been asked to do this. Cf. Note sent by Assistant Prosecutor I of Mixco Agency No. 5 to the forensic physician, supra. Also, on August 2, 2011, the Assistant Prosecutor asked the forensic physician who signed the autopsy to interpret it and, on August 4, 2011, the physician responded “that it was not possible to rule on the time and manner of the victim’s death based on the autopsy findings” (supra para. 111). Cf. Request sent to the Head of the Institute of Forensic Science, supra, and expert appraisal provided by the medical expert of the Institute of Forensic Science, supra. 289 This is true for cases of sexual assault and rape, in which a medical examination does not necessarily confirm that they have occurred, because not all cases of rape and/or sexual assault cause physical injuries or disease that can be verified by a medical examination. Cf. Case of Fernández Ortega et al., supra, para. 124, and Case of J., supra, para. 329. See also, EHCR, M.C. v. Bulgaria, no. 39272/98, 4 December 2003, para. 166. 290 291 Cf. Expansion and conclusion of report issued by Criminal Investigation Expert I, supra. Regarding the procedures carried out in this case, expert witness José Mario Nájera Ochoa indicated that “a forensic physician was not present during the removal of the corpse, owing to the area in which it took place