63 illusory. Every element which determines the severity of the punishment should correspond to a clearly identifiable objective and be compatible with the Convention. 197. Likewise, it must be noted that the principle of res judicata provides protection from another judgment only when this judgment is reached with due respect for the guarantees of due process, in conformity with the Tribunal’s jurisprudence on this subject.205 On the other hand, if new facts or evidence are discovered which make it possible to ascertain the identity of those responsible for grave human rights violations, investigations can be reopened, even if the case ended in an acquittal with the authority of a final judgment. 198. Finally, the State has the non-derogable duty to directly provide redress to the victims of human rights violations for which it is responsible according to the standards of attribution of State responsibility and reparation established by the Court in its jurisprudence. Moreover, the State must ensure that the reparation claims formulated by the victims of grave human rights violations and their next of kin do not encounter excessive procedural burdens or obstacles that could present an impediment or obstruction to the satisfaction of their rights. b) Proceedings in the Military Criminal Courts 199. The Commission alleged that, in this case, the application of the military criminal justice system constituted a violation of the “principle that cases should be tried by an appropriate and impartial judge [juez natural], of due process, and of access to adequate judicial recourse.” The representatives agreed with the Commission and added that the intervention of the military criminal justice system clearly obstructed the investigation in the ordinary criminal courts. During the proceedings before the Court, the State acknowledged that the military criminal courts did not have jurisdiction to hear the case. Nevertheless, it indicated that, in the present case, the intervention of the military criminal justice system “has diminished notably” and that the case file had been “transferred to the ordinary justice system.” It also indicated that “at the time of the facts, the authorities of the InterAmerican system had not yet issued their rulings on the military criminal justice system; however, as they have become known, the State has been developing a policy that establishes limits to that system, in accordance with the terms and scope indicated at the international level.” 200. The Court has established that the military criminal courts should have a restrictive and exceptional scope, bearing in mind that they should only judge members of the armed forces when they commit crimes or misdemeanors that, owing to their nature, affect rights and duties inherent to the military system.206 In this regard, when the military justice system assumes jurisdiction over a matter that should be heard by the ordinary justice system, the right to have a case tried by the appropriate judge is affected.207 This guarantee of due process should be examined taking into account the object and purpose of the American Convention, which is the effective protection of the individual.208 For these 205 Cf. Case of Almonacid Arellano et al., supra note 16, para. 154. Cf. Case of La Cantuta, supra note 8, para. 142; Case of Almonacid Arellano et al., supra note 16 para. 131; and Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, supra note 12, para. 189. 206 207 Cf. Case of Almonacid Arellano et al., supra note 16, para. 131; Case of Palamara Iribarne. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 135, para. 143; and Case of the 19 Tradesmen, supra note 33, para. 167. 208 Cf. Case of the 19 Tradesmen, supra note 33, para. 173.