54 is a wide-ranging and imprecise provision that prevents determination of the exact connection between a crime that falls under the ordinary jurisdiction and military service objectively assessed. The possibility that the military courts may try a soldier accused of an ordinary crime, merely because he is on active service, implies that jurisdiction is awarded merely because he is a soldier. Thus, even if the crime is committed by soldiers while they are still on active service, or based on service-related acts, this is not enough for such crimes to be heard by the military criminal justice system.218 163. In the case of Radilla Pacheco, this Court found that the provision contained in said Article 57 functions as a rule and not as an exception, an indispensable characteristic of the military jurisdiction in order for it to conform to the standards established by this Court.219 The Court recalls that Article 2 of the American Convention establishes the general obligation of each State Party to adapt its domestic law to the Convention’s provisions in order to guarantee the rights that it establishes, which implies that the measures under domestic law must be effective (the effet utile principle).220 Consequently, the Court finds that the State failed to comply with the obligation contained in Article 2 of the American Convention, in connection with Articles 8 and 25 thereof, by extending the jurisdiction of the military justice system to crimes that have no precise connection to the military discipline or to juridical rights inherent in the military forum. * * * 164. Lastly, regarding the alleged inexistence of an effective remedy to contest the military competence, the Court has indicated that Article 25(1) of the Convention establishes the obligation of the State Parties to ensure, to all those subject to its jurisdiction, an effective judicial remedy for acts that violated their fundamental rights.221 165. Mrs. Rosendo Cantú filed a petition for amparo [relief] against the decision of the Civil Public Prosecutor’s Office that confirmed the military justice system���s jurisdiction to hear the case (supra para. 145). However, this petition was dismissed in first instance (supra para. 145), because of the Act of the Common Public Prosecutor’s Office “since it is not sufficient to affect the legal interest of the plaintiff in this forum, because it is not a definitive Act, nor an order that directly associates so that the agent of the [Military] Public Prosecutor’s Office, who was granted competence, takes a decision in this regard,” and for this reason there was “cause of inability to execute the petition for amparo [relief] which obligates the Court of Constitutional Control to not adjudicate the merits in question.”222 Said order was confirmed using the same arguments.223 In addition, Mrs. Rosendo Cantú presented an appeal regarding the jurisdiction of the Military Public Prosecutor’s Office (supra para. 145) requesting it to abstain from hearing the case.224 218 Case of Radilla Pacheco, supra note 36, para. 286. 219 Cf. Case of Durand and Ugarte v. Perú. Merits. Judgment of August 16, 2000. Series C No. 68, para. 117; Case of the Rochela Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C No. 163, para. 200, and Case of Radilla Pacheco, supra note 36, para. 287. 220 Cf. Case of Garrido and Baigorria v. Argentina. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 27, 1998. Series C No. 39, para. 68; Case of the Dos Erres Massacre, supra note 27, para. 122, and Case of Chitay Nech et al., supra note 25, para. 213 221 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 1, para. 91; Case of Usón Ramírez, supra note 216, para. 128, and Case of Radilla Pacheco, supra note 36, para. 291. 222 Cf. Order of the First District Judge of the state of Guerrero, supra note 166, folio 11285 and 11288. 223 Cf. Judgement of the Fifth Judge of District "B" on Criminal Matters in the Federal District, supra note 172, folios 12414 to 12438. 224 Cf. Brief of objection of jurisdiction of Mrs. Rosendo Cantú, supra note 169, folios 16762 to 16778.