Moreno and Luis Castillo. It will also consider the arguments made regarding the notification of the decision to archive the case and the alleged impairment of the participation of the alleged victims in the domestic proceedings, as well as the alleged violation of the right to know the truth. 150. First, in relation to the investigation, the Court deems it necessary to point out that the so-called “preliminary objection” regarding the failure to exhaust domestic remedies, as alleged by the State, is inadmissible according to Article 42 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court. Said provision clearly states that “preliminary objections may only be filed in the [State’s answer] brief.” Therefore, given that the State did not put forward that argument at that stage, but rather in the final written arguments (supra paras. 13 and 146), the Court cannot consider it since it is time-barred. 151. The Court has indicated in its consistent case law that “the obligation to investigate is an obligation of means and not of results, which must be assumed by the State as its own legal duty, and not as a simple formality predestined to be unsuccessful, or as a simple measure responding to private interests.”86 The investigation must be “serious, impartial [...] effective [...] and [be] designed to determine the truth and to pursue, capture, prosecute and eventually punish the authors”87 of the crime. This obligation remains “regardless of the agent to whom the violation may eventually be attributed, even private individuals, because if their acts are not properly investigated, they would, to a certain extent, be supported by the public authorities, which would involve the international responsibility of the State.”88 152. Similarly, the Court has stated that, in the context of an investigation into a violent death, efficiency should be evident from the first procedures carried out with full diligence. 89 Accordingly, the State authorities conducting the investigation should at minimum try, inter alia, to: i) identify the victim; ii) recover and preserve evidence related to the death, in order to use it in any potential prosecution of those responsible, iii) identify possible witnesses and obtain statements in connection with the death under investigation iv) determine the cause, manner, place and time of death, and any pattern or practice which may have caused the death, and v) distinguish between natural death, accidental death, suicide and homicide. In addition, it is necessary to thoroughly investigate the crime scene, and autopsies and analyses of human remains should be performed rigorously by competent professionals using the most appropriate procedures.90 86 Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, para. 177, and Case of Vélez Restrepo and relatives V. Colombia, supra, para. 247. 87 Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez v. Honduras, supra, para. 127, and Case of Vélez Restrepo and relatives V. Colombia, supra, para. 247. 88 Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, para. 177, and Case of Vélez Restrepo and relatives V. Colombia, supra, para. 188. 89 Case of Servellón García et al. v. Honduras, supra, para. 120, and Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico, supra, para. 300, and Case of Kawas Fernández V. Honduras, supra, para. 102. 90 Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez v. Honduras, supra, para. 127; Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico, supra, para. 300, and Case of González Medina and relatives v. Dominican Republic. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs Judgment of February 27, 2012. Series C No. 24, footnote 274, and the United Nations Manual on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-Legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions, Doc. E/ST/CSDHA/.12 (1991). 38