25. The Commission indicated that the ruling of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation of July 14, 2011, “constitutes a significant step forward as regards limiting the military jurisdiction in Mexico and reveals the impact of the inter-American System [on the] protection of human rights in order to overcome obstacles in compliance with the international obligations of the State in this regard.” However, it noted that this change in case law had to be incorporated into legislative reforms. In this regard, the Commission noted with concern that the State had “merely repeated information [… that] does not reveal specific progress in compliance with these measures of reparation,” and “insists on promoting a legislative reform that would not be fully in line with the terms [of the Judgment].” In this regard the Commission asked the Inter-American Court to require the State to provide information on how the draft reform of article 57 of the Code of Military Justice was adapted to the standards established in the Judgment in relation to the intervention of the military jurisdiction in crimes committed by Army officials, and regarding the possible intervention of the military jurisdiction at the investigation stage “of a crime that is not an offense committed during the course of duties.” In addition, it observed with concern that the legislative reform of article 57 of the Code of Military Justice “is in its initial stages, and no report has been approved,” so that “the State continues to fail to comply with the order of the Inter-American Court.” Lastly, it asked the Court to require further information on the reform of article 215A of the Federal Criminal Code and recalled that the Judgment maintains that the State “cannot merely present the bill with the abovementioned modifications, but must “ensure its prompt approval and entry into force.’” 26. The Court reiterates that the ruling of the SCJN of July 14, 2011 (supra considering paragraph 5), makes a positive contribution to the protection and promotion of human rights in the Mexican State, among others, by requiring that members of the Judiciary exercise, ex officio, control of conformity with the Convention in the terms of the Judgment delivered by the Inter-American Court in this case.17 Specifically, this “Ruling of the Plenary” determined that: “Article 57, paragraph II, of the Code of Military Justice, is incompatible with the provisions of […] article 13 [of the Federal Constitution …] in light of Articles 2 and 8(1) of the American Convention […] because establishing which crimes are against the military discipline does not guarantee to civilians or their next of kin who are victims of human rights violations [that] they can be subject to the jurisdiction of an ordinary judge or court. Consequently, since the second paragraph of article 1 of the Federal Constitution provides that the norms relating to human rights will be interpreted in the terms of the Constitution and in accordance with the relevant international treaties, always giving preference the greatest protect for the individual, it should be considered that, under no circumstance, can the military justice system operate in relation to situations that violate the human rights of civilians.”18 27. In addition, the case file before the Inter-American Court reveals that, from August 6 to September 13, 2012, “the Plenary of the SCJN took over the hearing of [13] cases related to the restriction of the military jurisdiction, in all of them deciding to refer the case to the ordinary justice system.”19                                                              17 In the Judgment, the Inter-American Court established that “the Judiciary must exercise ex officio the control of conformity between domestic laws and the American Convention, pursuant to their respective terms of reference and the corresponding rules of procedure.” Cf. Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico. Preliminary objections, merits reparations and costs. Judgment of November 23, 2009. Series C No. 209, para. 339. 18 Cf. Ruling of the Plenary of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation of July 14, 2011, Case file Various matters 912/2010. Published in the Official Gazette of the Federation of October 4, 2011. Annex to the State’s brief of November 30, 2011 (file on monitoring compliance, tome III, folio 1512). 19 Cf. Note of September 17, 2012, signed by Justice Juan N. Silva Meza, President of the SCJN. Annex 6 to the brief of October 3, 2012 (file on monitoring compliance, tome V, folio 2899). 10