52 within a special agency of the Office of the Attorney General for Military Justice, who has carried out various actions and it is anticipated that it will yield specific results from the alleged facts of the present case. Accordingly, it asked the Court to declare the inexistence of violations of Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention, to the detriment of Mrs. Rosendo Cantú. Subsequently, during the public hearing, the State affirmed that it “would not present any arguments with regard to ministerial competences in this case, because the Court had already made a final ruling on this issue in its Judgment in the case of [Radilla Pacheco].” In the final written arguments, the State maintained that, despite that which was ordered by the Court in the mentioned case, it is the Military Public Prosecutor’s Office “who is charged with the duty to continue the investigations” and that “[i]t is inappropriate to suspend the investigations being carried out, given that they were properly established in the current legal framework." * * * 159. First, with regard to the State’s argument that the rights to judicial guarantees and to judicial protection have not been violated because the investigations remain at the ministerial (investigative) stage, the Court recalls its jurisprudence establishing that the guarantees under Article 8(1) of the Convention do not apply merely to judges and trial courts or judicial proceedings.210 In particular, in relation to the investigations conducted by the Public Prosecutor’s Office, the Court has established that, depending on the circumstances of the case, it may have to examine the measures that relate to and constitute the grounds for judicial proceedings, particularly the investigation procedure, the results of which the opening and progress of said proceedings depend.211 Accordingly, the Court will rule on the investigation conducted in this case and will determine whether the rights to judicial guarantees and judicial protection and other Inter-American norms have been violated in this domestic procedure. 160. In particular, with regard to the intervention of the military jurisdiction to examine acts that constitute violations of human rights, this Court recalls that, recently, it has ruled with regard to Mexico, in the case of Radilla Pacheco. Taking this into account, together with the arguments of the State (supra para. 17), for the effects of this case, the Court finds it sufficient to reiterate that: [i]n a democratic State of law, the military criminal jurisdiction shall have a restrictive and exceptional scope and be directed toward the protection of special juridical interests, related to the functions characteristic of the military forces. Therefore, the Court has stated previously that only soldiers in active service shall be prosecuted under the military jurisdiction for the commission of crimes or offenses that, by their nature, threaten the juridical rights of the military system.212 Furthermore, [...] taking into account the nature of the crime and the juridical right damaged, the military criminal jurisdiction is not the competent jurisdiction to investigate and, if applicable, prosecute and punish the authors of violations of human rights; rather the processing of those responsible always corresponds to the ordinary [non-military] forum. In this regard, the Court has indicated on numerous occasions that “[w]hen the military jurisdiction assumes competence for a matter that should be heard by the ordinary jurisdiction, it is violating the right to a hearing by an ordinary court previously established by 210 Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Perú. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of February 6, 2001. Series C No. 74, para. 105; Juridical Condition and Rights of the Undocumented Migrants. Advisory Opinion OC-18/03 September 17, 2003. Series A No. 18, para. 124, and Case of Claude Reyes et al., v. Chile. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 19, 2006. Series C No. 151, para. 118. 211 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán-Morales et al.), supra note 123, para. 222; Case of Tristán Donoso, supra note 130, para. 145, and Case of Garibaldi v. Brazil. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 23, 2009. Series C No. 203, para. 120. 212 Case of Radilla Pacheco, supra note 36, para. 272.