30. Additionally, the State indicated that “parallel to the legislative process, the Supreme Court of the Justice of the Nation, through the General Agreement No. 6/2012, decided to gather all the amparos under review, the direct amparos, and the jurisdictional conflicts being tried by the circuit courts en banc in which it subsists to analyze the competence of the military courts to hear offenses committed by members of the military against civilians. Under this tenor, [the Supreme Court of the Justice of the Nation took up] 26 amparos on review, one direct amparo, and one jurisdictional conflict related to the competence of the military courts […][; for its part], the plenary of the [Supreme Court of the Justice of the Nation] took up 13 cases involving the limits of the military courts, ruling, in all of them, to transfer the proceedings to the ordinary courts.” 17 31. In regard to the reforms to establish an effective remedy to challenge the jurisdiction of the military courts, the State reported that “[o]n June 6, 2011, the ‘Decree amending, supplementing, and repealing various provisions of Articles 94, 103, 104, and 107 of the Political Constitution of the United States of Mexico’ was published in the Official Gazette of the Federation,” which would lead to the creation of “an effective remedy for the defense of human rights.” In particular, the State indicated that, “in its first subsection, Article 103 states that the [c]ourts of the Federation shall rule on disputes arising from violations of human rights and the guarantees for their protection recognized and provided for by [the] Constitution, as well as by international treaties to which [M]exico is a State Party to.” It further stated that “[t]he constitutional reform on human rights elevates all human rights contained in the international treaties to a constitutional level.” It added that “[t]he amendment to the amparo appeal hearing […] broadened the origin of the amparo appeal hearing with respect to violations of human rights recognized in the international treaties.” Furthermore, the State noted “that the decree of modification to the Code of Military Justice […] sets forth” Article 740, which establishes a process for jurisdictional challenges before the authorities hearing the matter. 18 For these reasons, the State argued that “currently, in Mexico, the ability of victims or persons directly harmed, such as family members, to challenge the jurisdiction of the military courts through the constitutional process is already guaranteed.” 32. In this regard, the representatives confirmed that “[i]t is true that […] the initiative was approved by the senatorial committees […] and subsequently forwarded the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores V. México (case file of monitoring of compliance with judgment, tome I, folio 322). 17 Jurisdictional Conflicts 38/2012 and 60/2012, review amparos 133/2012, 770/2011, 60/2012, 61/2012, 62/2012, 63/2012, 217/2012, 252/2012, 224/2012 and direct amparo 15/2011. Second report of the State of Mexico on the measures adopted in regard to the compliance with the Judgment issued by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores V. México (case file of monitoring of compliance with judgment, tome I, folio 322). 18 Cf. Article 740 of the decree of the modification of the Code of Military Justice, which notes: “When the lack of jurisdiction is based on Article 13 of the Constitution or in Article 58 of this Code, the motion to contest jurisdiction can be opposed at any time and can be resolved without being processed. This lack of jurisdiction can be declared by a judge ex officio. If one with competence challenges, the case file will be forwarded in order for the case to be resolved to the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation. The victims, the offenders, their family members, or any person that is affected by the intervention of the military forum, when dealing with the crimes refered to in Article 58 of the Code can challenge the jurisdiction by way of a brief addressed to the authority that knows of the proceeding. In the case that such jurisdiction is held, the case file shall be forwarded to the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation.” Second Report of the State of Mexico on the measures adopted in compliance with the Judgment issued by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores V. México (case file of monitoring of compliance with judgment, tome I, folio 323). 11