90. Finally, the Commission observes that, during the first months and even years after Mr. Pacheco's death, the investigation focuses exclusively on Messrs. Maldonado, Estrada, and Vigil. The IACHR has not identified in the case file any clues that would explain why these persons were connected to the investigation. On the contrary, Mr. Pacheco's son, Yimmy Pacheco, pointed out at a police lineup, days after the crime took place, that he did not recognize any of these three persons as being the one who shot his father. Likewise, Yimmy Pacheco stated that the car that was confiscated from Messrs. Estrada and Vigil was not the same as the one he saw on the day of his father's death. 91. On the basis of these elements, the IACHR considers that, after Mr. Pacheco León's homicide, the political, prosecution and judicial authorities did not adopt the initial minimum measures required in accordance with the standards determined by the Commission and the Court in a wide range of similar cases, in the light of the "Manual on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-Legal, Arbitrary or Summary Executions." In that respect, from the start, the investigation suffered from severe constraints, which, as will be explained in the following paragraphs, have exerted a direct impact on the situation of total impunity prevailing over the events of the case. 1.1.2. Subsequent actions 92. On the basis of an evaluation of subsequent actions, the Commission has identified various flaws, irregularities, and omissions throughout the investigation, which are examined below. a. Absence of logical and timely lines of inquiry into the possible direct participation of state agents 93. In its case law on the subject of impunity, the Court has highlighted the importance of establishing logical lines of inquiry on the basis of the proof and evidence gathered during the process. 145 94. The Commission stresses that, from the first statements made in the framework of the judiciary proceedings, various declarants, including Mr. Pacheco's next of kin and persons who worked with him on his political campaign, mentioned the names of persons who had threatened and intimidated him before his death, including certain state agents. Likewise, judicial authorities obtained information about the fact that a police officer might have been the perpetrator of Ángel Pacheco's death. 95. Regarding this, the IACHR observes that the State had much evidence indicating that Mr. Pacheco was threatened by the mayor of Amapala at that time, Juan José Quiroz, by the former congressperson Manuel Vides, and by the former alternate congressperson Raúl Pino. The Commission notes that these persons were considered as the possible perpetrators of Ángel Pacheco's killing on the basis of various DGIC reports. Because of the contents and context of the threats that were described, state authorities should have been required to draw up and exhaustively examine a sound investigative hypothesis about the political candidacy of Mr. Ángel Pacheco León and the interests that his candidacy could have undermined. Likewise, on the basis of proven facts, it appears that the perpetrator of the crime could have been a police officer assigned to the Headquarters of Casamata, by the name of Santos Mendoza, who had "done jobs" for Jorge Berrios, former congressperson and also the alleged instigator of Mr. Pacheco's death. 96. As for Messrs. Quiroz, Vides, and Pino, the IACHR notes that, although they were reported as the instigators and were even identified as such in accordance with various DGIC reports, the State did not adopt the minimum investigative steps to follow up on this fundamental information concerning the possible motive for the killing and to determine their possible responsibility for Ángel Pacheco's death. 97. Regarding this, in cases of the arbitrary privation of the right to life the Court has stated that: 145 I/A Court H.R., Case of González Medina and family v. Dominican Republic. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 27, 2012. Series C No. 240, para. 115.