75 191. Without detriment to such statements, on August 26, 1999, the defense asked the Fifth District Judge to order the Public Prosecutor’s Office to investigate the allegations of torture, the state of incommunicado and the unlawful detention to which Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel were subjected at the Army’s facilities.290 Hence, on August 31, 1999, the Fifth District Judge ordered the Public Prosecutor’s Office to investigate the facts denounced291 and on October 1, 1999, the Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office of Coyuca de Catalán, in the state of Guerrero, launched the Preliminary Inquiry (supra para. 74). 192. The Court has pointed out that it is evident from Article 8 of the Convention that the victims of human rights violations or their next of kin should have substantial possibilities of being heard and acting in the respective proceedings, both in order to clarify the facts and punish those responsible, and to seek due reparation292. Likewise, it has been held that article 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture clearly establishes “if there is an accusation or well-grounded reason to believe that an act of torture has been committed within their jurisdiction, the States Parties shall guarantee that their respective authorities will proceed properly and immediately to conduct an investigation into the case and to initiate, whenever appropriate, the corresponding criminal process.”293 Likewise, the Court has also mentioned that the obligation to investigate and the corresponding right of the alleged victim or his next-of-kin not only derives from conventional international Law rules binding upon the States Parties, but also from domestic legislation related to the duty to investigate ex officio certain unlawful conducts and the rules that allow victims or their relatives to report or file claims, evidence, petitions or any other proceeding, in order to participate in criminal investigation proceedings to find the truth of the events.294 193. This Tribunal verifies that the investigation against the alleged perpetrators of torture was initiated more than three months after the first mention made to said acts committed against Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel. In addition, the Court notes that said investigation was initiated upon the express request of the petitioners of August 26, 1999 (supra para. 74). Based on the foregoing, it is clear for this Tribunal that the State failed to comply with the obligation to conduct an ex officio investigation into the facts that violated the human rights of Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel and, consequently, the Court concludes that the State violated article 8(1) of the American Convention, as well as article 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture. 2. Competence of the military criminal justice 194. Apart from what was mentioned in relation to an ex officio investigation into 290 Cf. Constitutional confrontation hearings of August 26, 1999, supra note 86, folios 10157 and 10158. 291 Cf. Court order of August 31, 1999 by the Fifth District Court, supra note 87, folio 10162 to 10163. 292 Case of Fernandez Ortega et al v. Mexico, supra note 39, para. 192; and Case of Rosendo Cantú et al v. Mexico, supra note 30, para. 176. 293 294 Similarly, Case of Gutierrez Soler v. Colombia, supra note 204, para. 54. Cf. As way of example, article 141 of the Federal Code of Criminal Procedure recognizes the rights of victims or injured party in the preliminary inquiry (Paragraph A), in the criminal proceeding (paragraph B) and during the enforcement of penalties (paragraph C) and the Code of Criminal Procedures of the state of Guerrero, in its article 5, first paragraph, recognizes the right of the victim or the injured party to assist the Public Prosecutor's Office at providing the members of the court with of all the information available, leading to verify the admissibility and amount of the damage caused by the crime. Quoted in Case of Fernandez Ortega et al v. Mexico, supra note 39, para. 192.