88 treaties ratified by Colombia,” it is understood that “the case law of the international instances, in charge of interpreting those treaties, constitutes a relevant interpretative criterion to establish the meaning of the constitutional rules on fundamental rights.”341 233. Therefore, as it has been held in the cases of Radilla Pacheco, Fernández Ortega and Rosendo Cantu, it is necessary that the constitutional and legislative interpretations regarding the material and personal competence criteria of military jurisdiction in Mexico be adjusted to the principles established in the jurisprudence of this Tribunal, which have been reiterated in the present case342 and that are applied to every human right violation allegedly committed by members of the armed forces. This implies that, independently of the legislative reforms the State shall adopt (infra para. 234), in the instant case, the judiciary authorities must, based on the conventionality control, rule immediately and ex officio that the facts be heard by a natural judge, that is, the common criminal jurisdiction.343 234. On the other hand, this Tribunal recalls that it has already considered in the case of Radilla Pacheco, and reiterated in the case of Fernandez Ortega and Rosendo Cantu, that it is not necessary to order the modification of the regulatory content included in Article 13 of the Political Constitution of the United Mexican States. Despite the aforementioned, the Court stated in Chapter IX of the present Judgment that Article 57 of the Military Criminal Code is incompatible with the American Convention (supra para. 206). Therefore, the Court repeats the State that it has the obligation to adopt, within a reasonable period of time, the appropriate legislative reforms in order to make the mentioned provision compatible with the international standards of the field and of the American Convention, pursuant to the terms established in this Judgment.344 235. Lastly, according to Chapter IX of this Judgment, Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel did not have access to an adequate and effective remedy whereby it was possible to challenge the intervention of the military jurisdiction in the proceedings conducted for the alleged acts of torture committed against them (supra para. 204). In consequence, as it has been ordered in the cases of Fernández Ortega and Rosendo Cantu, México must adopt, also within a reasonable period of time, the corresponding legislative reforms to allow the individuals affected by the intervention of the military jurisdiction to have access to an effective remedy to challenge its competence.345 ii) Adapting the domestic law to the international standards regarding torture 341 Judgment C-010/00 issued on January 19, 2000 by the Constitutional Court of Colombia, para. 6. 342 Cf. Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico, supra note 302, para. 340; Case of Fernandez Ortega et al. v. Mexico, supra note 39, para. 237; and Case of Rosendo Cantú et al v. Mexico, supra note 30, para. 220. 343 Cf. Case of Fernandez Ortega et al. v. Mexico, supra note 39, para. 237; and Case of Rosendo Cantú et al. v. Mexico, supra note 30, para. 220. 344 Cf. Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico, supra note 302, para. 341 and 342; Case of Fernandez Ortega et al v. Mexico, supra note 39, paras. 238 and 239; and Case of Rosendo Cantú et al v. Mexico, supra note 30, paras. 221 and 222. 345 Cf. Case of Fernandez Ortega et al v. Mexico, supra note 39, para. 240; and Case of Rosendo Cantú et al v. Mexico, supra note 30, para. 223.