33 Police under its command or the assistants of the Social Representative himself who may verify [the] inconveniences [and deprivation of liberty].”113 In this regard, the Second Collegiate Court considered that the Army was empowered to arrest the alleged victims “based on the carrying of firearms for the exclusive use of the Armed Forces.”114 85. Taking these elements into account, the Court considers that the instant case is related to previous jurisprudence where, based on an official State document,115 it was noted that the presence of the Army carrying out police work in the state of Guerrero has been a controversial issue with respect to individual and community rights and freedoms, and has placed the population in a vulnerable situation.116 86. In this respect, the Court considers that, in some contexts and circumstances, a high military presence accompanied by the intervention of the Armed Forces in public security activities may entail the introduction of a risk to human rights. Thus, for example, international organizations have analyzed the implications of allowing the military bodies to act as judicial police, such as the United Nations Human Rights Committee and the Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, who have expressed their concern by the fact that the military exercise the functions of investigation, arrest, detention and interrogation,117 and have stated that “[t]he judicial police functions should be carried out exclusively by a civilian entity.” […] This would allow the independence of investigations and constitute an important improvement in the access to justice for victims of and witnesses to human rights violations, who, at present, very often see their complaints being investigated by the very institutions they accuse of being responsible for these violations.”118 87. Moreover, this Court has held that "even though […] the State has the right and obligation to guarantee its security and maintain public order, its power is not unlimited, since it has the duty, at all times, to apply procedures pursuant to Law and respectful of the fundamental rights, of all individual under its jurisdiction.”119 In that respect, the Court has emphasized the extreme care which States must observe when they decide to use their Armed Forces as a mean for controlling social protests, domestic disturbances, internal violence, public emergencies and common crime.120 113 Cf. Judgment issued on August 14, 2002 by the Second Collegiate Tribunal, supra note 84, folio 14414. 114 Cf. Judgment issued on August 14, 2002 by the Second Collegiate Tribunal, supra note 84, folio 14533. 115 Diagnosis on violence against women in the municipalities of the region of La Montaña de Guerrero. Secretariat of Women Affairs of the State of Guerrero and others. Cf. Case of Fernandez Ortega et al. v. Mexico. Supra note 39, para. 79. 116 Case of Fernandez Ortega et al v. Mexico, supra note 39, para. 79. 117 See United Nations. Final Observations of the Committee on Human Rights. Colombia 05/05/97. CCPR/C/79/Add.76, para. 19. 118 Cf. Special Rapporteurs on Torture and Extra-Judicial Executions E/CN.4/1995/111, para. 117.a). Ratified by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers (E/CN.4/1998/39/Add.2), para. 185. 119 Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of November 25, 2000. Series C No. 70, para. 174; Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez v. Honduras. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 7, 2003. Series C N° 99, para. 111; and Case of Servellón García et al v. Honduras. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 21, 2006. Series C No. 152, para. 86. 120 Cf. Case of Montero Aranguren et al (Reten de Catia) v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 5, 2006. Series C Nº. 150, para. 78; Case of Zambrano