109. Both the Commission and the Inter-American Court have held that, in keeping with the duty to investigate a person's death with due diligence, states have the obligation to act with all diligence from the very first stages of a proceeding.114 110. In analyzing whether an investigation has been conducted with due diligence from the initial stages of proceedings, the Commission and the Inter-American Court have taken into consideration the United Nations Manual on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions. As the Court has specified: At a minimum, state authorities conducting an inquiry shall seek, inter alia: (a) to identify the victim; (b) to recover and preserve evidentiary material related to the death in order to aid in any potential prosecution of those responsible; (c) to identify possible witnesses and obtain statements from them concerning the death; (d) 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 (e) to distinguish between natural death, accidental death, suicide and homicide. The Court further notes that: (a) the crime scene must be exhaustively investigated and (b) autopsies, as well as analyses of skeletal remains, must be rigorously performed by competent professionals, employing the most appropriate procedures.115 111. Furthermore, as regards due diligence in the course of the investigation, the Inter-American Court has determined that "each State act that composes the investigation proceeding, and the entire investigation in itself, should be oriented at a specific purpose: the determination of the truth and the investigation, finding, arrest, prosecution and, if applicable, punishment of those responsible for the events.”116 In that regard, the State must show that it carried out an immediate, exhaustive and impartial investigation,117 and it must be aimed at exploring all the possible lines of inquiry.118 The State may be liable for a failure to order, practice or evaluate evidence that may have been essential for a proper clarification of the facts.119 112. Legal precedent has also established that in cases where there are contradictory versions involving deprivation of the right to life, beyond taking specific steps to gather evidence, “due diligence in the investigation must be evaluated in relation to the need to determine the veracity of the versions considered within the process of what happened, that is, if such process allowed a judicial clarification of the facts and a possible legal qualification of the same according to what happened.”120 114I/A Court H.R., Case of Zambrano-Vélez et al. C. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 166, par. 121, and IACHR. Case 11.442. Report No. 90/14. Merits. Luis Jorge Valencia Hinojosa. Ecuador. November 4, 2014, para. 140. 115I/A Court H.R., Case of the Moiwana Community v. Suriname. Judgment of June 15, 2005. Series C No. 124, par. 149; I/A Court H.R., Case of the Miguel Castro-Castro Prison v. Peru. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160, par. 383. Citing the Manual on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions, Doc. E/ST/CSDHA/.12 (1991). The Commission has relied on United Nations documents to evaluate basic procedures to be carried out in such cases in previous matters. See IACHR. Report 10/95, (Manuel Stalin Bolaños Quiñonez). Case 10.580 Ecuador. September 12, 1995, par. 53. The Commission notes that this Manual has been updated and is available in English at: http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Executions/MinnesotaProtocolInvestigationPotentiallyUnlawfulDeath2016.pdf 116I/A Court H.R., Case of Cantoral-Huamaní and García-Santa Cruz v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 10, 2007. Series C No. 167, par. 131. 117IACHR, Report on Merits No. 55/97, Juan Carlos Abella et al. (Argentina), November 18, 1997, par. 412. 118IACHR, Report No. 25/09, Merits (Sebastião Camargo Filho) Brazil, March 19, 2009, par. 109. See, too, IACHR, Access to Justice for Women Victims of Violence in the Americas, OEA/Ser. L/V/II. doc.68, January 20, 2007, para. 41. 119I/A Court H.R., The “Street Children” Case (Villagrán Morales et al.). Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63, par. 230. See, too, IACHR, Access to Justice for Women Victims of Violence in the Americas, OEA/Ser. L/V/II. doc.68, January 20, 2007, para. 41. 120 I/A Court H.R., Case of García Ibarra et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 17, 2015. Series C No. 306, para. 143. 27