41 […] the events were a consequence of service or duty-related acts and any illegality that may have derived from that service constitutes a duty-related crime, as there is a cause and effect relationship between the duty and the illegal acts ascribed. Therefore, the military criminal jurisdiction is found to be apt under the provisions of […] the Political Constitution of Peru, insofar as it meets the following requirements: a) the accused are active duty military personnel, b) they acted in the discharge of their assigned duties in the military operation, c) the legally protected interests is discipline and the protection of the values that inform military life, and d) the acts described in the complaint are defined in articles ninety-four, one hundred seventy-nine and one hundred eighty of the Code of Military Justice. 186. As far as the military jurisdiction, the IACHR recalls that it must only be applied in conjunction with an offense against a military criminal legal interest associated with the specific duties of 188 defense and security of the State, and never to investigate human rights abuses. In this sense, the IACHR has stated on other occasions that: The military criminal justice system has certain peculiar characteristics that impede access to an effective an impartial remedy in this jurisdiction. One of these is that the military jurisdiction cannot be considered a real judicial system, as it is not part of the judicial branch, but is organized instead under the Executive. Another aspect is that the judges in the military judicial system are generally active-duty members of the Army, which means that they are in the position of sitting in judgment of their comrades-in-arms, rendering illusory the requirement of impartiality, since the members of the Army often feel compelled to protect those who fight alongside them in a difficult and dangerous context. Military justice should be used only to judge active-duty military officers for the alleged commission of service-related offenses, strictly speaking. Human rights violations must be investigated, tried and punished in keeping with the law, by the ordinary criminal courts. Inverting the jurisdiction in cases of human rights violations should not be allowed, as this undercuts judicial guarantees, under an illusory image of the effectiveness of military justice, with grave institutional 189 consequences, which in fact call into question the civilian courts and the rule of law. 187. On this point, the Inter-American Court has held that: […] military criminal jurisdiction in democratic states, in times of peace, has tended to be reduced and has even disappeared, reason for which, if a State conserves it, its use shall be minimum, as strictly necessary, and shall be inspired on the principles and guarantees that govern modern criminal law. In a democratic State of law, the military criminal jurisdiction shall have a restrictive and exceptional scope and be directed toward the protection of special juridical interests related to the tasks characteristic of the military forces. Therefore, the Tribunal has previously stated that only active soldiers shall be prosecuted within the military jurisdiction for the commission of crimes or 190 offenses that based on their own nature threaten the juridical rights of the military order itself. 188 Inter-Am. Ct. H.R., Case of Palamara Iribarne. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 135. para. 132 189 IACHR. Report Nº 2/06 (Merits). Case 12.130, Miguel Orlando Muñoz Guzmán (Mexico), February 28, 2006, paras. 83 and 84. 190 Inter-Am. Ct. H.R., Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico. Judgment on Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. November 23, 2009, para. 272; Inter-Am. Ct. H.R., Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al v. Peru, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R.. Merits. Judgment of November 3, 1997. Series C No. 34, para. 128; Inter-Am. Ct. H.R., Case of Durand and Ugarte v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of August 16, 2000. Series C No. 68, para. 117; Inter-Am. Ct. H.R., Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of August 18, 2000. Series C No. 69, para. 112; Inter-Am. Ct. H.R., Case of Las Palmeras v. Colombia. Merits. Judgment of December 6, 2001. Series C No. 90, para. 51; Inter-Am. Ct. H.R., Case of the 19 Merchants v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 5, 2004. Series C No. 109, para. 165; Inter-Am. Ct. H.R., Case of Lori Berenson Mejía v. Peru, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2004. Series C No. 119, para. 142; Inter-Am. Ct. H.R., Case of the Mapiripán Massacre v. Colombia, Preliminary Objections. Judgment of March 7, 2005. Series C No. 122, para. 202; Inter-Am. Ct. H.R., Case of Palamara Iribarne v. Chile. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 135, paras. 124 and 132; Inter-Am. Ct. H.R., Inter-Am. Ct. H.R., Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140, para. 145, para. 189; Inter-Am. Ct. H.R., Case of Almonacid Arellano et al v. Chile, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 154, para. 131; Inter-Am. Ct. H.R., Case of La Cantuta v. Peru, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 29, 2006. Series C No. 162, para. 142; Inter-Am. Ct. H.R., Case of the Rochela Massacre v. Colombia, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C No. 163, para. 200; Inter-Am. Ct. H.R., Case of Escué Zapata v. Colombia, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 165, para. Continues…