25 clarifying the facts or had an impact on the final outcome of the processes followed.130 Such an assessment must take into account criteria that are objective or reasonable in the particular circumstances of the case and the arguments of the parties and of the Commission, weighing elements such as the evidence, the guidelines found in the Court’s case law or the decisions of the domestic authorities on the measures that, in the specific case, are considered necessary.131 It should not be assumed that flaws in specific aspects of the investigation had a negative impact on the overall process if, despite such flaws, the investigation had a result that was effective in elucidating the facts.132 82. With respect to the latter point, it should be noted that, in this case, Guatemala took actions that determined what had occurred and that resulted in the conviction of 14 persons, which was made final on September 23, 2005 (supra para. 65). Neither the parties nor the Commission alleged that those determinations and the convictions were in any manner erroneous. Therefore, the Court considers that there is no purpose in evaluating the arguments on the shortcomings to the due diligence with respect to the acts or omissions involved in the conduct of the evidence or the effectiveness of the determination of what had occurred.133 83. Otherwise, it would be necessary for the Commission to examine the arguments of the parties and of the Commission with regard to the following: (a) whether the intervention of the military jurisdiction early in the proceedings was, per se, a violation of rights recognized in the Convention; (b) whether there were omissions in the inquiry on the alleged intellectual authors and the “chain of command”; (c) the reduction in the sentences and the release of the convicted persons; (d) the failure to apprehend 11 persons who are fugitives from justice, and (e) the reasonability of the time that elapsed. B.2. Military jurisdiction 84. The Court has repeatedly held that military justice “is not the proper jurisdiction to investigate […] violations of human rights.”134 However, it also notes that in this case, due to the challenges to the military jurisdiction by the complainant, the proceedings were transferred to the ordinary courts. As it was a question of some four months,135 it is not evident that the intervention of the military jurisdiction had an impact on the subsequent Cf. Case of Luna López v. Honduras. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 10, 2013. Series C No. 269, para. 167 and Case of Pacheco León et al. v. Honduras. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 15, 2017. Series C No. 342, para. 75. 131 Cf. Case of Castillo González et al. v. Venezuela, supra, para. 153 and Case of Pacheco León et al. v. Honduras, supra, para. 76. 132 Cf. Case of Luna López v. Honduras, supra, para. 167 and Case of Carvajal Carvajal et al. v. Colombia, supra, para. 117. 133 The Court did not receive arguments on the handling of the evidence, such as those brought to its attention by the Commission on the misplacing of the victims’ clothes, the registry of the cartridges or the preservation of the scene of the crime. Nor will it consider the Commission’s claim that the acceptance of different recourses and evidence of the indicted was “contrary to the legal framework” and that no reasons were given for the rejection of evidence and statements provided by the complainant (supra para. 76). Nor is it necessary to analyze the arguments on the failure to adopt procedures that, in addition, were raised generically, nor on the absence of measures regarding threats and harassment that were sketchily presented in relation to the effectiveness of the investigation. Likewise, there will be no examination of the mention of the representative on the alleged “lack of interest” of the authorities in the investigation, which was vague or imprecise in that it was not related to specific acts or omissions. As to the Commission’s remarks on “long periods of inactivity,” see the Court’s examination of the reasonability of the time elapsed during the proceedings. 134 Cf. Case of La Cantuta v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 29, 2006. Series C No. 162, para. 142 and Case of Herzog et al. v. Brazil. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of March 15, 2018. Series C No. 353, para. 248. 135 The Court recalls that the military justice system intervened in the case from almost its inception until January 31, 1996, when the case was transferred to the ordinary courts. 130