youth dedicated to trade, and according to some, weapons trade.” The judge indicated that the members of the military forces had acted in self-defense and in the fulfillment of a duty to safeguard their lives as they were facing the shots from Mr. Giraldo Villamizar who had ignored the military’s order to stop.” 311 212. On March 1, 2000 the Military High Court issued a statement confirming the judgment from the judge (primera instancia).312 The process in the disciplinary jurisdiction 213. On April 27, 1998 a disciplinary investigation of Sergeant Gustavo Urbano Mejía and Corporal José Virgilio Mahecha was opened due to the death of Mr. Villamizar. On September 27, 2000, the Office of the Prosecutor Delegate for Discipline and Human Rights Defense decided the "termination of the proceedings” considering that “there were clear juridical and evidentiary grounds to determine the existence of a legitimate right.”313 b. Considerations of the Commission i) In relation to the Independence and impartiality of the military jurisdiction authorities 214. The Commission recalls that the special jurisdictions, as the criminal military justice, must be exceptional and restrictive in scope and aimed at the protection of special legal interests, linked to the institution itself. The Inter-American Court has had the chance to analyze the structure and composition of these special jurisdictions, as the military, on the light of the United Nations Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judges. Some relevant elements are: i) they are made up of active-duty military members 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. All this made it conclude that said courts lack independence and impartiality to hear violations of human rights.314 215. Taking into consideration the aforementioned criteria, the Inter-American Court has mentioned the incompatibility of the American Convention to the application of the criminal military jurisdiction to human rights violations, stating that it is very troublesome to guarantee Independence and impartiality when “the very same military forces engaged in fighting the insurgent groups are those charged with prosecuting their peers for executing civilians.”315 Therefore, the Inter-American Court has previously 311 The Judge took particular attention to the witness statements from militaries, as well as to the “technical expertise” written by the National Institute of Legal Medicine and Forensic Sciences according to which the “gun was shot.” The Judge established that there were no merits to judge them at the Oral War Council, ordered to “cease every proceeding in favor of those being investigated,” and to notify the decision. In case it was not appealed, to consult with the immediate superior. Annex. 96. Judge of First Instance, Cavalry Group No. 18 “Rebeiz Pizarro”, Judgment of November 19, 1999. Annex to the State’s brief received on August 26, 2010. 312 It was indicated that “it is possible to infer, with no hesitation whatsoever, that it has been proven that the members of the military forces were behaving within the framework that excludes the unlawfulness that operates as negative elements of an unfair typical objective […] which are part of a crime, like the compliance with their legal duty and the need to self-defense from an unfair and real aggression.” The Court concluded that there were no elements to punish a defensive behavior from the militaries, which makes the unlawful element to disappear from their behavior. Annex. 100. Military High Court, Process No. 142237-XII-497-EJC, Judgment of March 1, 2000. Annex to the State’s brief received on August 26, 2010. 313 Annex. 101. Office of the Prosecutor General, Order of the Prosecutor Delegate for Discipline and Human Rights Defense, Exp. 008-42739-2000, September 27, 2000. Annex to the State’s brief received on August 26, 2010. 314 Cf. I/A Court H.R., Case of Palamara Iribarne v. Chile. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 135, paras. 155 y 156. 315 I/A Court H.R., Case of Las Palmeras v. Colombia. Merits. Judgment of December 6, 2001. Series C No. 90, para. 53.