51 B. Intervention of the military criminal justice system 156. The Inter-American Commission stated that there were no elements that justified the intervention of the military justice system in the investigation of the complaint for rape. The military justice system should be used only to try soldiers on active service for the alleged perpetration of strictly service-related offenses. In cases involving human rights violations, the military criminal jurisdiction does not satisfy the requirements of independence and impartiality established in Article 8(1) of the American Convention. Similarly, the transfer of partial competence from the military jurisdiction to the common jurisdiction so as to investigate only civilians is incompatible with the Convention. Consequently, it asked the Court to declare that the State violated Articles 8(1) and 25 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof. 157. The representatives argued that Mrs. Rosendo Cantú’s rights to judicial guarantees and to judicial protection were violated because her case was submitted to the military jurisdiction, based on Article 13 of the Constitution and Article 57(ii)(a) of the Code of Military Justice, and also because the State had not provided an effective remedy to contest the application of said jurisdiction to her case. The military jurisdiction does not fulfill the requirements of impartiality, independence, and competence to hear human rights violations, and the submission of the case to this jurisdiction violated the guarantee of a hearing by a competent tribunal as previously established by law. This practice owes itself to the absence of an express provision in the Mexican legal system that excludes the military justice system from hearing offenses of this type, and in general, to the transfer of ordinary offenses committed by soldiers on active service, or related to active service, to this jurisdiction based on Article 57 of the Code of Military Justice. The foregoing is a result of the ambiguity of Article 13 of the Constitution interpreted in accordance with the contents of Article 57(ii)(a) of the Code of Military Justice. In addition, they emphasized that said situation is aggravated because of the ineffectiveness of the domestic remedies available to question which is the jurisdiction responsible for the investigation given that in two cases “the petition for amparo [relief] proved to be ineffective and inadequate as a means of protection of the human rights of the [victim], because the investigations […] continued […] under the charge of the military jurisdiction.” Consequently, they asked the Court to declare that the State had violated the rights contained in Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, and also in Articles 1, 6, and 8 of the Convention against Torture, and Article 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará. 158. In the answer to the application, the State, among other arguments, affirmed that the guarantee of a competent, independent, and impartial judge had not been breached, because the actions taken to that date corresponded to ministerial [investigative] authorities. Consequently, the Court has been asked to penalize the expectation of a violation that did not arise from an action that had occurred, and in particular, that had been to the detriment of Mrs. Rosendo Cantú, given that she “has not been subjected to the military jurisdiction, and her complaint has not been heard by a military court.” In addition, Mexico indicated that the development of the investigation has been a central element for determining jurisdiction. In other words, the investigation was initiated by civil authorities before whom the complaint was filed. When the participation of members of the Armed Forces was indicated, the investigation was transferred to the Military Public Prosecutor’s Office. The alleged victim’s failure to collaborate prevented the investigation from advancing. In regards to the investigation of the facts in the complaint, the State considered that “the investigation continue, and that by means of the ministerial authorities, there exist the will to get at the truth of the matter and punish those responsible.” Once the sketch had been administered in August 2009, and the alleged perpetrators had been identified, the investigation was assigned cartography, cf. Expert opinion on cartography presented on May 14, 2010, supra note 104, folios 18112 to 18125.