64 reasons, and due to the nature of the crime and the rights and freedoms damaged, the military criminal jurisdiction is not the competent jurisdiction to investigate and, if applicable, prosecute and punish the perpetrators of human rights violations. 201. In this case, despite the fact that the ordinary criminal courts had already started to investigate Lieutenant Luis Enrique Andrade, based on his collaboration with the “Los Masetos” paramilitary group, the military criminal courts ordered that he should be investigated for the same facts in this jurisdiction. As a result, on October 31, 1989, an order was issued in his favor such that the proceedings were closed for the crime of homicide.209 202. On November 14, 1990, the ordinary criminal courts ordered that copies be made of the proceedings against Lieutenant Andrade in those courts so that he could be investigated for conspiracy in the military criminal courts. This order was executed in January 2005, more than 14 years after it had been issued.210 Given the passage of time, the military criminal courts initially declared that the action had prescribed, and subsequently declared that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the case; the case file was therefore returned to the ordinary criminal justice system.211 On October 19, 2005, the Attorney General’s Office nullified the military court’s decision in which it had declared that the suit was timebarred,212 and on January 19, 2007, the Attorney General’s Office decided to bring Lieutenant Andrade under investigation in the ordinary criminal courts for the offense of conspiracy.213 203. The Court notes that, in addition to the transfer of the investigation in 1990 to courts, which manifestly lacked jurisdiction, the extreme negligence in complying with this transfer impeded the investigation of the conduct of Lieutenant Luis Enrique Andrade Ortiz for 17 years. As a result, the lack of due diligence in determining the responsibilities of the soldiers in this case has been aggravated. 204. Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes that the trial of Army Lieutenant Andrade for the crime of murder in the military criminal courts, which lacked jurisdiction, violated the principle of the competent, independent and impartial court [juez natural] which requires a case to be heard by the appropriate judge and, in tandem, the right to due process and judicial access. Moreover, with regard to the investigation of this Army officer for the offense of conspiracy, no investigation at all was conducted in the competent jurisdiction for a long time, due to the transfer of the investigation to the military criminal courts. 209 Cf. judgment of October 31, 1989, issued by Military Preliminary Criminal Investigations Court 126 (record of evidences to the application, evidence A52, page 845). 210 Cf. report of August 25, 2006, issued by the National Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Unit (record of evidences to the State’s reply brief, volume I, evidence 1, page 4588). 211 Cf. judgment of February 28, 2005, issued by Military Preliminary Criminal Investigations Court 75 (record of evidences to the State’s reply brief, volume I, evidence 3-O, pages 4895, 4897, 4901, 4903, 4905 and 4906); judgment of June 7, 2005, issued by the Superior Military Tribunal [Tribunal Superior Militar] (record of evidences to the State’s reply brief, volume I, evidence 3-P, pages 4920 to 4922 and 4925). 212 Cf. resolution of October 19, 2005, issued by the Office of the Fourteenth Specialized Prosecutor for the National Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Unit (record of evidences to the State’s reply brief, volume II, evidence 3S, page 4987). 213 Cf. resolution of January 19, 2007, issued by the Office of the Fourteenth Specialized Prosecutor for the National Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Unit (record of evidences to the State’s reply brief, volume II, pages 8015 to 8018).