ordinary jurisdiction for this act. 696 Furthermore, although none of those presumably responsible has yet been identified or accused in the investigation opened by the ordinary justice system into the torture of Yolanda Santodomingo Albericci and Eduardo Matson Ospino, the Court takes note of the representatives’ argument that the Military Superior Court’s decision invoking the statute of limitations “has resulted in res judicata, so that the Colonel [Head of the B-2] cannot be investigated for these facts in the ordinary jurisdiction.” The Court considers that this decision of the military criminal justice system had and still has concrete effects on the investigation of these facts that are not rectified or overcome by the mere fact that, at the present time, these facts are being investigated in the ordinary jurisdiction. 449. Facts that it is alleged could constitute forced disappearance and torture are acts or facts that can never relate to the military mission or military discipline. To the contrary, the alleged acts committed by military personnel against the victims in this case violated rights protected by domestic criminal law and the American Convention, such as the rights to life, and to personal liberty and integrity of the victims. Therefore, the Court reiterates that the criteria that require the investigation and prosecution of human rights violations in the ordinary jurisdiction are based not on the seriousness of the violations, but rather on their very nature and on the rights protected. 697 It is evident that forced disappearance and torture are acts that run counter to the obligations to respect and protect human rights; therefore, they are excluded from the competence of the military jurisdiction. Consequently, the military jurisdiction’s intervention in the investigation of the forced disappearance of Irma Franco Pineda and the torture of Yolanda Santodomingo Albericci and Eduardo Matson Ospino between 1986 and 1994 was contrary to the criteria of exceptionality and restriction that characterize this and signified the application of a jurisdiction that operated without taking into account the nature of the acts involved. 698 450. Based on the above considerations, the Court concludes that the State violated the guarantee of an ordinary judge as regards the investigation into the forced disappearance of Irma Franco Pineda conducted by the military jurisdiction, as well as with regard to the investigation into the detention and torture suffered by Yolanda Santodomingo Albericci and Eduardo Matson Ospino. 451. The representatives also argued that the jurisdictional conflict created in 2009 by a military criminal judge in the proceedings against the Commander of the Cavalry School represented another inappropriate interference of military criminal justice in the events of this case, and a violation of the guarantee of an ordinary, independent and impartial judge. In this regard, the Court observes that the State resolved this interference appropriately and promptly, because, in less than a month, the Superior Council of the Judicature reaffirmed the jurisdiction of the ordinary criminal justice system and, subsequently, even proceedings not only for the purpose of the respective reparation of the harm, but also to assert his rights to the truth and to justice. The importance of the passive subject transcends the military sphere, because rights are involved that belong to the ordinary sphere. Cf. Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 23, 2009. Series C No. 209, para. 275, and Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 26, 2010. Series C No. 220, para. 197. 696 In this regard, see footnote 227 supra. Cf. Decision of the Fourth Prosecutor delegated to the Supreme Court of Justice of September 28, 2007 (evidence file, folio 13957). 697 Cf. Case of Vélez Restrepo and family members v. Colombia. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 3, 2012. Series C No. 248, para. 244, and Case of Osorio Rivera and family members v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 26, 2013. Series C No. 274, para. 190. 698 Cf. Case of Fernández Ortega et al. v. Mexico. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 30, 2010. Series C No. 215, para. 177, and Case of Osorio Rivera and family members v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 26, 2013. Series C No. 274, para. 190. 158