truly intended to elucidate the facts, but rather to obtain an acquittal of the accused, and that the judicial officials lacked the requisite independence and impartiality.262 197. In this case, the application of inadmissible grounds in the decision of the Court Martial Appeals Court (supra para. 193) resulted in the removal of the alleged perpetrators from the hand of justice and left the facts of the case in impunity. In addition, the intervention of the military jurisdiction in the investigation of the facts contravened the parameters of exceptionality and restriction that characterize it and signified the application of a personal jurisdiction that functioned without taking into account the nature of the acts involved. Both circumstances violated the demands of justice and the rights of the victims, from which the Court concludes that the decision of the Court Martial Appeals Court cannot be considered a legal obstacle to the institution of criminal proceedings, or a final judgment.263 198. This conclusion is valid in this case even though the event was at the investigation stage by the Joint Military Investigation Board. As the above criteria reveal, the incompatibility of the American Convention with the intervention of the military jurisdiction in this type of case does not refer only to the prosecution by a court, but essentially to the investigation itself, because it constitutes the initiation and the necessary presumption for the subsequent intervention of an incompetent court. Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes that the State violated the rights to judicial guarantees and judicial protection established in Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of the next of kin of the deceased (infra Annex A). 2. Impunity of the offenders and access to justice 199. The Court has indicated that Article 8 of the Convention reveals that the victims of human rights violations or their next of kin must be given ample possibility to be heard and to act in the respective proceedings, both to seek clarification of the facts and the punishment of those responsible, and to obtain due reparation. 264 Thus, the Court has indicated that, in a case of extrajudicial execution, the rights impaired correspond to the deceased victim’s next of kin, who are the interested party in the search to obtain justice and those to whom the State must provide effective remedies to guarantee them access to justice, the investigation and, where appropriate, the eventual punishment of those responsible, and full reparation for the consequences of the violations.265 200. Also, the Court has repeatedly stated that: […] When the military courts hear acts that constitute human rights violations against civilians, they exercise jurisdiction not only with regard to the defendant, who must necessarily be an active member of the armed forces, but also with regard to the civil victim, who has the right to participate in the criminal proceeding not only for the effects of the corresponding reparation of the harm but also to exercise his rights to the truth and to justice […]. Thus, the victims of human rights violations and their next of kin have the right to have the said violations heard and resolved by a competent court, in accordance with the due process of law and access to justice. The importance of the passive subject transcends the military sphere, since juridical rights inherent in the ordinary jurisdiction are involved.266 262 Case of Carpio Nicolle et al. v. Chile, supra, para. 131, and Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. v. Chile, supra, para. 154. 263 Cf. Case of Almonacid Arellano et al., para. 154. 264 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala, supra, para. 227, and Case of González Medina and family members v. Dominican Republic, supra, para. 207. 265 Cf. Case of Durand and Ugarte v. Peru. Merits, supra, para. 130, and Case of González Medina and family members v. Dominican Republic, supra, para. 200. 266 Cf. Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico, supra, para. 275, and Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico, supra, para. 197. 54