36 has been established by diverse legislation to maintain the order and discipline within the armed forces. Even, such functional jurisdiction states that this legislation is enforced for soldiers who have committed a felony or offense exerting their functions and under some circumstances. In this sense it was defined in the Peruvian legislation itself (Article 282 of the 1979 Political Constitution). 53 117. In a democratic Government of Laws the penal military jurisdiction shall have a restrictive and exceptional scope and shall lead to the protection of special juridical interests, related to the functions assigned by law to the military forces. Consequently, civilians must be excluded from the military jurisdiction scope and only the military shall be judged by commission of crime or offenses that by its own nature attempt against legally protected interests of military order. 118. In this case, the military in charge of subduing the riots that took place in El Frontón prison resorted to a disproportionate use of force, which surpassed the limits of their functions thus also causing a high number of inmate death toll. Thus, the actions which brought about this situation cannot be considered as military felonies, but common crimes, so investigation and punishment must be placed on the ordinary justice, apart from the fact that the alleged active parties had been military or not. 119. In spite of the above, the State ordered to the military justice to be in charge of the investigation of the serious events in El Frontón, which carried out such investigation and dismissed the process followed against the liable military parties. 120. The Commission stated that the military exclusive court does not offer the minimal guarantees of independence and impartiality as stipulated in Article 8(1) of the Convention. Thus, it does not constitute an effective recourse to protect the victims and relatives' rights and to repair damages violating also Article 25. 121. This Court has stated that: [a]rticle 25 is closely related to the general obligation of Article 1(1) of the American Convention, to ascribe protection functions to the internal law of the States Parties, of which it is inferred that the State bears the responsibility to design and recognize an efficient recourse, but at the same time to assure duly implementation of said recourse by its judicial authorities. 54 122. Regarding the proven facts of this case, victims or their relatives did not have an effective recourse that could guarantee their rights leading among other things to a lack of identification of the liable parties during proceedings followed by the military court and the failure to use due diligence to identify and establish the victims' whereabouts. The data involved in the rulings allow considering the investigation of events in El Frontón in anticipation by military tribunals was simply formal. 53 54 Castillo Petruzzi et al Case, supra note 8, para. 128. cf. Villagrán Morales et al Case, supra note 10, para. 237; Cesti Hurtado Case. Judgment of September 29, 1999. Series C. No. 56, para. 121; Castillo Petruzzi et al Case, supra note 8 para. 184; Castillo Páez Case, supra note 11 para. 83; Paniagua Morales et al Case, supra note 8, para. 164; Blake Case, supra note 10. para. 102; and Suárez Rosero Case, supra note 9, para. 65.