368. The Court notes that these obligatory actions must be performed immediately, to the degree that circumstances permit. The authorities in the case at hand believed that the removal of the bodies should not be done right away due to safety concerns (supra paras. 168 and 169). Even if circumstances militated against performing these procedures due to safety conditions, nonetheless the State was under obligation to conduct them as promptly as possible, as soon as the rescue operation was complete, and to do so meticulously and diligently. 369. Under circumstances like these, when government officers or authorities themselves hold information on how victims died from the use of lethal force by agents of the state, nothing must hinder the conduct of a proper investigation that will ensure the minimum guarantees of independence and effectiveness. 370. Nonetheless, it has been shown in this case that measures were not taken to preserve and properly secure the scene of the events and that removal of the bodies, which was controlled by authorities from the military and the National Intelligence Service, cannot be described as reliable, technically sound or professional: weapons and grenades that turned up were moved, and no technical personnel recorded or photographed the evidence found; 435 no fingerprints were taken on the weapons or grenades allegedly involved in the incident; no one was allowed to take prints or evidence at the scene of the events or to take the samples needed for use in forensic exams,436 and the report on removal of the bodies did not record all necessary information. 371. The 1997 autopsies were performed in a place that was unsuitable and lacked the resources needed for such a procedure.437 No external description of the bodies was made, and only the chest and abdominal cavities were opened, but not the skulls, which was a breach of internal regulations (supra para. 175). By superior orders, no pathology studies were requested.438 Also by superior orders, the bodies were not to be photographed or filmed. 439 Members of the explosives deactivation unit made statements, now contained in the case file, consistently reporting that: (a) they were not allowed to keep a record of their procedures; (b) they were watched at all times by members of the army; (c) during the entire procedure, camouflaged army personnel were present, wearing face masks and taking notes of the scene. Cf., inter alia, Statement by Luis Ernesto Gálvez Melgar before the Specialized Provincial Prosecutor, May 11, 2001 (evidence file, volume XXVI, CVR evidence, folios 18338 to 18344); statement by José Alberto Marthans Gómez before the Specialized Provincial Prosecutor, May 14, 2001 (evidence file, volume XXVI, CVR evidence, folios 18345 to 18352), and statement by Oscar Fidel Pérez Torres before the Specialized Provincial Prosecutor, June 11, 2001 (evidence file, volume XXVI, CVR evidence, folios 18353 to 18358). 435 Cf. Statement by Pedro Rigoberto Ruiz Chunga before the Specialized Provincial Prosecutor, June 13, 2001 (evidence file, volume XXVI, CVR evidence, folios 18359 to 18362). 436 Cf. Statement by Pedro Rigoberto Ruiz Chunga before the Specialized Provincial Prosecutor, June 13, 2001 (evidence file, volume XXVI, CVR evidence, folios 18359 to 18362); statement by Vicente Pedro Maco Cárdenas before the Specialized Provincial Prosecutor, June 15, 2001 (evidence file, volume XXVI, CVR evidence, folios 18363 to 18368); statement by María del Rosario Peña Vargas before the Specialized Provincial Prosecutor, June 18, 2001 (evidence file, volume XXVI, CVR evidence, folios 18369 to 18374); and statement by Norvinda Muñoz Ortiz before the Specialized Provincial Prosecutor, June 19, 2001 (evidence file, volume XXVI, CVR evidence, folios 18375 to 18380). 437 Cf. Statement by Pedro Rigoberto Ruiz Chunga before the Specialized Provincial Prosecutor, June 13, 2001 (evidence file, volume XXVI, CVR evidence, folios 18359 to 18362); statement by Vicente Pedro Maco Cárdenas before the Specialized Provincial Prosecutor, June 15, 2001 (evidence file, volume XXVI, CVR evidence, folios 18363 to 18368); statement by María del Rosario Peña Vargas before the Specialized Provincial Prosecutor, June 18, 2001 (evidence file, volume XXVI, CVR evidence, folios 18369 to 18374); and statement by Norvinda Muñoz Ortiz before the Specialized Provincial Prosecutor, June 19, 2001 (evidence file, volume XXVI, CVR evidence, folios 18375 to 18380). 438 Cf. Memorandum 12-97-DGPNP from the Director General of the National Police of Peru of the General Directorate of the National Police of Peru, April 23, 1997, to the Director of Health of the National Police of Peru (evidence file, volume XXVI, CVR evidence, folio 18933). 439