B. Right to judicial guarantees and judicial protection (Articles 8.1 68 and 25.1. 69 of the American Convention in conjunction with Articles 1.1 and 2 thereof) 68. Both the IACHR and the Court have established that in cases involving violent deaths, especially when State agents may be involved, an investigation must be carried out using all legal means available to determine the truth and to try and punish those responsible.70 Likewise, States are required to provide rapid and simple recourse to ensure that perpetrators of human rights violations are brought to trial and that the victims receive reparation for the harm done.71 69. In addition, in cases in which a death may have resulted from the lethal use of force by State agents, the European Court of Human Rights has pointed out that "most careful scrutiny" is needed, taking into consideration “not only the actions of State agents who actually administer the force but also all the surrounding circumstances including such matters as the planning and control of the actions under examination."72 Thus, "any deficiency in the investigation, which undermines the ability thereof to establish the cause of death or the person responsible, will put compliance with this norm at risk."73 70. Regarding the application of special jurisdictions, the IACHR has indicated that they must apply on a limited and exceptional basis and be aimed at the protection of special legal interests that are tied to the entity in question.74 Thus, the Inter-American Court has had the opportunity to analyze the structure and composition of special courts in light of the United Nations Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary. A number of relevant factors are: (i) that they are made up of active-duty officers who are hierarchically subordinate to higher-ranked officers through the chain of command; (ii) that their designation does not depend on their professional skills and qualifications to exercise judicial functions; and (iii) that they do not have sufficient guarantees that they will not be removed. This has led to the conclusion that such tribunals lack the necessary independence and impartiality to take cognizance of human rights violations.75 71. Likewise, the Court has examined whether the characteristics of the criminal jurisdiction of the police in Ecuador complies with conventional standards applied to military courts: i) the relationship between that jurisdiction and the Executive Branch; ii) the composition of each body within the criminal jurisdiction of the police (requirements for holding those positions, professional training, status and rank within the National Police); iii) the procedures used to appoint judges and prosecutors; iv) guarantees against removal from office (duration of position and grounds for dismissal); and v) the possibility of subsequent judicial oversight by an ordinary court.76 72. Based on that, the Court concluded that the functional and administrative dependence of the police justice system on the Executive and the impossibility of requesting a judicial review in the ordinary jurisdiction did not guarantee the independence and impartiality of the police jurisdiction. Moreover, the subordination and chain of command proper to the National Police did not provide sufficient guarantees of the independence and impartiality of police criminal court judges, at the personal or individual level, due to: the manner in which they were appointed; the lack of sufficient guarantees of stability in their position (especially in the case of District Judges, who can be freely appointed and removed and who, as in this case, were empowered to decide whether or not a case would continue); and the active service status of the Article 8.1: Every person has the right to a hearing, with due guarantees and within a reasonable time, by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal, previously established by law, in the substantiation of any accusation of a criminal nature made against him or for the determination of his rights and obligations of a civil, labor, fiscal, or any other nature. 69 Article 25.1: Everyone has the right to simple and prompt recourse, or any other effective recourse, to a competent court or tribunal for protection against acts that violate his fundamental rights recognized by the constitution or laws of the state concerned or by this Convention, even though such violation may have been committed by persons acting in the course of their official duties. 70 IACHR. Report No. 41/15. Cases 12.335 and 12. 336, 12. 757, 12.711. Merits. Gustavo Giraldo Villamizar Durán et al. Colombia. July 28, 2015, par. 195. See, also: I/A Court HR. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre” v. Colombia. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 122, par. 219; and Case of Mendoza et al. v. Argentina. Preliminary Objections, Merits and Reparations. Judgment of May 14, 2013. Series C No. 260, par. 218. 71 I/A Court HR. Loayza Tamayo Case v. Peru. Reparations. Judgment of November 27, 1998. Series C No. 42, par. 169. 72 ECHR, McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, Application No. 27229/95, September 1995, para. 36. 73 ECHR, Milkhalkova and others v. Ukraine, Application no. 10919/05, 13 January 2011, para. 42. 74 IACHR. Report 53/01. Case 11.565. Ana, Beatriz and Cecilia González Pérez. Mexico. April 4, 2001, par. 81; Report No. 51/16, Case 11.564, Merits, Gilberto Jiménez Hernández et al, Mexico, par. 156. 75 I/A Court HR. Case of Palamara Iribarne v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs, Judgment of November 22, 2005, Series C No. 135, paras. 155-156. 76 I/A Court HR. Case of Valencia Hinojosa et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 29, 2016, Series C No. 327, par. 94.[Tr. Spanish only] 68 10