aimed at determining the truth, and at the pursuit, capture and eventual prosecution and punishment of the perpetrators of the acts.215 176. To be able to determine whether the investigation was conducted diligently, the Court will refer to diverse measures taken during the criminal proceedings relating to the handling of the crime scene, the autopsy, and other evidentiary elements. 177. The Court notes that, on November 14, 2005, the corpse of Mr. Ruiz Fuentes was found on Avenue 0, 5th Street, of Colonia Monja Blanca de Barberena, Santa Rosa.216 According to the police record drawn up that day, Mr. Ruiz Fuentes’ body was lying on its back with arms and legs outstretched and eyes closed.217 178. The Court has established that the effective determination of the truth, within the framework of the obligation to investigate a death, should be revealed by the thoroughness of the initial procedures. The Court has indicated that the state authorities who conduct an investigation of this type must seek, as a minimum, inter alia: (i) to identify the victim; (ii) to recover and preserve evidentiary material related to the death to aid any potential prosecution of those responsible; (iii) to identify possible witnesses and obtain statements from them concerning the death; (iv) to determine the cause, manner, location and time of death, as well as any pattern or practice that may have brought about the death, and (v) to distinguish between natural death, accidental death, suicide and homicide. In addition, the scene of the crime must be investigated comprehensively, and autopsies and analyses of human remains must be performed conscientiously by qualified professionals using the most appropriate procedures. 218 179. The Court notes, first, that the cordoning off, protection and preservation of the crime scene was deficient. In this regard, expert witness Carranza Izquierdo emphasized that, from the photographs taken by the experts at the scene of the crime, it was possible to see that there were “numerous members of the Public Prosecution Service, the National Civil Police, Fire Brigade and courts inside the cordon,” which resulted in the contamination of the crime scene. Also, the video and the photographs taken by the experts, as well as the sketch made of the scene, were flawed because it was impossible to determine the exact location of the incident. In addition, the expert witness underscored the fact that the hands of Mr. Ruiz Fuentes’ corpse had not been bagged, even though there was a firearm in the right hand. This would have been necessary to be able to perform atomic absorption tests to determine whether gunshot residue was present. When packing up Mr. Ruiz Fuentes’ clothes, the state authorities’ failure to conduct pertinent tests to determine the distance from which the shots were fired is also noticeable.219 In this regard, and in light of Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention, this Court has indicated that in order to guarantee the effectiveness of the investigation, omissions in the gathering of evidence and in following up on logical lines of investigation must be avoided. When the facts refer to the violent death of a person, the respective investigation must be conducted in such a way as to guarantee the proper analysis of all the possible hypotheses of authorship.220 180. In the case of the medico-legal autopsy performed on November 15, 2005,221 the Court notes Cf. Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez v. Honduras. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 7, 2003. Series C No. 99, para. 127, and Case of Arrom Suhurt et al. v. Paraguay. Merits. Judgment of May 13, 2019, para. 142. 216 Cf. Police record of November 14, 2005, Procedure No. 1709-2005 (evidence file, folio 233), and Autopsy performed by Dr. Edgar Ricardo Arriola Barrios, Departmental Forensic Physician of the Cuilapa Judiciary, Santa Rosa, on November 15, 2005 (evidence file, folio 231). 217 Cf. Police record of November 14, 2005, Procedure No. 1709-2005 (evidence file, folio 233). 218 Cf. Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez v. Honduras, supra, para. 127, and Case of Pacheco León et al. v. Honduras, supra, para. 79. 219 Cf. Expert report of Dr. Guillermo Austreberto Carranza Izquierdo, of June 3, 2008 (evidence file, folio 242). 220 Cf. Case of Pacheco León et al. v. Honduras. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 15, 2017, para. 89. 221 Cf. Autopsy performed by Dr. Edgar Ricardo Arriola Barrios, Departmental Forensic Physician of the Cuilapa Judiciary, 215 42