exercise judicial functions; and iii) the fact that they do not have sufficient guarantees that they will not be removed. All of this implies that said courts lack the necessary independence and impartiality required to hear cases of human rights violations.107 105. Taking into consideration the criteria laid out above, the Inter-American Court has addressed the American Convention’s incompatibility with the application of military criminal jurisdiction to potential human rights violations, affirming that the fact that in these courts it is the armed forces themselves, who are “charged with prosecuting their peers for executing civilians,” makes it problematic for them to ensure independence and impartiality.”108 Thus, when it comes to special jurisdictions, such as military courts, the Inter-American Court has held that active-duty military personnel should only be tried “for the commission of crimes or offenses that based on their own nature, threaten the juridical rights of the military order itself.”109 106. In the instant case, because the investigation was opened into a potential violation of the right to life, a legal interest outside of the realm of military discipline, the Commission deems application of military justice to the case at hand a violation of the right to have a competent, independent and impartial authority to seek justice in cases of human rights violations. The Commission underscores that the only definitive response at the domestic level to the incidents of the case was precisely from a jurisdiction whose application was incompatible with the Convention, which raises serious doubts about the findings of fact reached by the military courts. The evidentiary implications of this were taken into consideration in the examination of the violation of Article 4 of the American Convention. 107. The Commission also notes that the application of military justice to this particular case was a result of a legal framework in force at the time of the incidents, specifically Article 13 of the Constitution and Article 57 of the Code of Military Justice. The organs of the Inter-American system have previously addressed incompatibility of the application of military jurisdiction, under the provisions of the Mexican Code of Military Justice, with the obligations established in the American Convention. The Commission has ruled several times now on international responsibility of the State for application of military criminal justice in cases falling outside the purview of military legal interests and made recommendations to the State on this issue on a number of occasions.110 For its part, in the case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico, the Inter-American Court held the following: (…) Article 57, fraction II, subparagraph a) of the Code of Military Justice is an ample and imprecise provision that prevents the determination of the strict connection of the crime of the ordinary jurisdiction with the military jurisdiction objectively assessed. The possibility that the military courts prosecute any soldier who is accused of an ordinary crime, for the mere fact of being in service, implies that the jurisdiction is granted due to the mere circumstance of being a soldier. In that sense, even when the crime is committed by soldiers while they are still in service or based on acts of the same, this is not enough for their knowledge to correspond to the military criminal justice.111 [official English translation of original] 108. Based on this holding, the Court ordered “the State shall adopt, within a reasonable period of time, the appropriate legislative reforms in order to make the mentioned provision [Article 57 of the Code of 107 IA Court of HR. Case of Palamara Iribarne v. Chile. Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment of November 22, 2005, Series C, No. 135, pars. 155-156. 108 IA Court of HR. Case of Las Palmeras v. Colombia. Merits. Judgment of December 6, 2001. Series C No. 90, par. 53. IA Court of HR. Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 23, 2009. Series C No. 209, par. 272. 109 110 IACHR. Report 53/01. Case 11.565. Ana, Beatriz and Cecilia González Pérez. Mexico. April 4, 2001. Par. 81. IA Court of HR. Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 23, 2009. Series C No. 209, par. 286. 111 20