126 interests, linked to the functions assigned to the military forces by the Law. For this reason, the military must only be tried there for crimes or offenses that by their very nature affect legal interests that pertain directly to the military order.248 203. In the instant case, the Court notes that on November 13, 2001, after several appeals, the Constitutional Court of Colombia ordered the annulment of the actions carried out under military criminal jurisdiction, when it ruled on an action for the protection of basic rights filed on September 30, 1999 by Nory Giraldo de Jaramillo, a civil party to the criminal proceeding, against the aforementioned decision of August 18, 1999 by the Disciplinary Chamber of the High Council of the Judiciary. The Constitutional Court decided to protect the basic right to due process due to disregard for the Competent judge, and therefore annulled the judgments issued by the Criminal Chamber of the High Court of the Judicial District of Bogotá on October 15, 1999 and by the Criminal Appellate Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice on December 9, 1999; it annulled said provision of August 18, 1999 and ordered the case remitted to the High Council of the Judiciary for it to decide on the clash of spheres of competence. In addition to the considerations of the Constitutional Court quoted above (supra para. 117), the Court must highlight that when it ruled on the clash of spheres of competence based on that decision, the Council of the Judiciary deemed that: […] the file contains evidence pointing to the fact that the officers involved were forewarned, both because their high military rank meant that they were aware of the actions of the self-defense or paramilitary groups, and because they themselves sent a message on July 15, 1997, when the macabre event was just beginning […] For a better understanding of the case, it is appropriate to take up some of the considerations of the Constitutional Court in its 2001 judgment SU-1184, where it noted that the military forces and the National Police have the role of guarantors stemming from their obligation to carry out non-renounceable duties in a democratic State, as reflected in […] Article 217 of the Constitution as well as in Article 209 ibidem, which establish their obligation to actively and effectively participate in defense of the Constitutional rights of the members of society; existence of this role as guarantors means that the charge is made for a crime against humanity, or in general for grave human rights violations, whatever the form of intervention, the degree of involvement in the execution or the attribution of subjective liability, that the chargeable omission falls under the jurisdiction of regular courts, because when one has the role of guarantor, omissions that enable, facilitate or cause (whether as perpetrator or accomplice, whether the crime was attempted or committed, culpably or with malice) a violation of human rights or of international humanitarian law, these behaviors are not related to the service […] and more specifically that the omissions committed by the accused enabled acts that degrade the sense of humanity, and therefore, due to objective reasons, jurisdiction cannot be allocated to military criminal justice. Omissions by the security forces are likewise considered unrelated to the service in those same cases in which the active conduct is not connected to the Constitutional mission assigned, that is, those that take place in the context of an operation that ab initio had criminal purpose, those that are conducted in a legitimate operation but in the course of which there is an essential deviation of the course of the activity or when they do not impede grave violations of human rights or of international humanitarian law. In brief, since the charge against officers JAIME HUMBERTO USCATEGUI RAMIREZ AND HERNAN OROZCO CASTRO involves committing crimes against human rights by omission, in events that took place when they respectively held the rank of Brigadier General and Major of the Army, and as such had the role of guarantors of the lives, honor and property of the citizens of Mapiripán, the matter must be heard by regular 248 See Case of the 19 Tradesmen, supra note 190, para. 165; Case of Las Palmeras. Judgment of December 6, 2001. Series C No. 90, para. 152, and Case of Cantoral Benavides. Judgment of August 18, 2000. Series C No. 69, para. 112.