103. Regarding the crime scene, international standards indicate that 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 prepare a detailed report with any observations regarding the scene, the measures taken by the investigators, and the assigned storage for all the evidence collected. The area next to the body must be sealed off and entry into it prohibited except for the investigator and his/her team.114 Until that has been done, all contamination of the crime scene must be avoided. The area must be guarded 24/7. One of the greatest risks at the site where the body is found is handling of the corpse, which should only be done in the presence of professionals, who need to examine it and move it appropriately depending on the condition of the body.115 104. Likewise, due diligence in a forensic investigation of a death requires maintaining the chain of custody of all forensic evidence.116 The Court has pointed out that that consists of keeping accurate written records, supplemented, where applicable, with photographs and other graphic material documenting the history of the piece of evidence as it passes through and is handled by various investigators responsible for the case.117 105. As for autopsies, they should at minimum garner information needed to identify the dead person and the time, date, cause and type of death. Certain formalities need to be followed, such as indicating the date and time at which they start, as well as the location at which they are conducted and the name of the public servant performing the autopsy.118 106. In the instant case, the IACHR reiterates that Mr. Gómez's corpse was found on March 19, 1885 in a gully in Guatemala City. The Commission also again points out that the criminal investigation did not begin with the reports of the victim's disappearance, but specifically once Alejandro Yovany Gómez's corpse had been found. That omission not only constitutes the reason for the State's international liability as discussed earlier. It also constituted a violation of the right to judicial guarantees and judicial protection. 107. Now, as regards the investigation conducted following the discovery of the body, the Commission has the following to say regarding compliance with standards described for minimal steps to be undertaken in violent death cases. The Commission stresses that the State is duty bound to place on record that such minimum steps were taken, so that the lack of any such indication with respect to this investigation leads the IACH to infer that they were not in fact undertaken. 108. First, the ICHR notes that the State did not present information regarding the establishment of an official record of the finding of Mr. Gómez's body. Even though the State is supposed to know this, the Commission has been given no information as to who found the body and under what circumstances. Nor are there any indications in connection with the criminal investigation that efforts were made to ascertain these details regarding the initial finding of the corpse. 109. Second, the Commission notes that the State also failed to provide information regarding the measures adopted to safeguard the crime scene and the evidence obtained by investigators in connection with it. In that sense, the IACHR has no certainty that efforts were made to gather and document evidence 114 Minnesota). United Nations Manual on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions (Protocol of 115 Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. Model Protocol for Forensic Investigation of Deaths Suspected of Having Been Caused by Human Rights Violations, Draft MEX/00/AH/10. 116 I/A Court HR. Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 16, 2009. Series C No. 205, par. 207. 117 I/A Court HR. Case of Human Rights Defender et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 28, 2014. Series C No. 283, par. 207. 118 I/A Court HR. Case of Veliz Franco et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of May 19, 2014. Series C No. 277, par. 194. 19