10 intact. Therefore, very serious crimes, such as torture in military barracks or in watch posts set up by carabineros will continue to be subject to military jurisdiction; iii) other exceptions seek to expand the current competence of military tribunals, going in the exactly opposite direction to that stated by the Inter-American Court. In this sense, the representatives stated that related to the maritime police and the expansion of the current competence of military justice by not demanding that the commission of the mentioned crimes occur in military dependencies; iv) matters so distant from military duties, such as the behaviors described in the Aeronautic Code regarding civil aviation, continue to be subject to military jurisdiction; v) it is not explicit when excluding civil employees of the Armed Forces and Carabineros from military jurisdiction; vi) it maintains under military jurisdiction not only the author of a crime of military jurisdiction, but also all those other parties responsible for the same, and it conserves the rule of preference for military justice if a same agent commits crimes from the military and common jurisdiction; and vii) finally, the project makes no progress in what refers to the other demands established in the Court’s Judgment, that is, the guarantees of the due process, thus the State’s non-compliance with this aspect is complete. c) with regard to the Commission for the Study of the Reform of Military Justice, whose inaugural session took place on October 17, 2007, the representatives stated that the “[…] creation of a Special Commission in charge of analyzing and preparing a reform of military criminal justice” had already been informed to this Honorable Court in the briefs [presented by the State in the year 2006]” and that “[n]o evidence is presented in order to know if the Commission mentioned now by the Chilean State is a new initiative or a continuation of what had already been started.” Likewise, they once again commented on the reform bill indicating, among other considerations, that “[…] the existing contrast between that indicated by the [State] and the actual content of the bill is of great concern […]” and that “[…] they do not see the need of an extensive reform bill in order to remove the actions of civilians from the realm of competence of the military courts […].” 29. That the Inter-American Commission stated that a) “[…] it values the efforts made [by the State] and that “it hopes that […] the superior interest of justice be taken into account and that the process started by the Special Commission be carried out as soon as possible and in such a way that it generate confidence and seek a true adjustment of the system in such a way that it be compatible with the international norms that oblige the State of Chile;” b) with regard to the bill sent by the Executive Power to the Legislative Power “it values the start of this process of legislative reform by the Chilean State in a positive manner; however, it takes note of that analyzed by the representatives