human rights violations may be prosecuted and reparations obtained for the damages suffered.102 In turn, Article 2 of the Convention requires the State to do away with provisions of the law and practices that imply a violation of rights protected in the Convention, as well as to pass laws and implement practices aimed at achieving effective observance of the required investigation.103 100. In cases of deaths, which may have been the consequence of the use of deadly force by state agents, the European Court has held that the “most careful scrutiny” must be used, taking into consideration not “only the actions of the State agents who actually administered the force but also all the surrounding circumstances, including such matters as the planning and control of the actions under examination.”104 Thus, “any deficiency in the investigation, which undermines the ability thereof to establish the cause of death or the person responsible, will put compliance with this norm at risk.”105 101. The Commission will examine whether or not the Mexican State met its obligation to investigate, in keeping with Inter-American standards, the death of Mirey Trueba at the hands of military agents and to provide his next of kin with an effective remedy to learn the truth and to obtain justice and reparation for what happened to him. This examination will focus on three areas: i) competence, independence and impartiality of the military authorities in charge of the investigation; ii) due diligence in the investigations; and iii) access to justice and access to information for the family members over the course of the proceedings. 1. Independence and impartiality of the military authorities in charge of the investigation 102. The proceedings were conducted in this case under the military criminal jurisdiction on the basis of Article 13 of the Constitution of the United Mexican States and Article 37 of the Code of Military Justice, which, at the time of the events, read as follows: Article 13.- Military jurisdiction subsists for crimes and offenses against military discipline. Article 57.- Crimes of military discipline are: […] II. Those of a common [local] or federal order when in the commission thereof any of the following circumstances explained below are present: a).- if they are committed by military members at the time they are on duty or on the occasion of acts thereof; […] When in instances of section II, military members and civilians are present, the former shall be tried by military justice. 103. In the instant case, jurisdiction of military courts was determined based on the fact that the perpetrator of the crime, Lieutenant Coronel Morales, was a member of the Armed Forces. 104. The Commission recalls that special jurisdictions, such as military criminal courts, must be of limited and exceptional scope and be intended to protect special legal interests, linked to the entity itself.106 In this regard, the Inter-American Court has had the opportunity to examine the structure and composition of special tribunals, such as military courts, in light of the United Nations Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary. Some relevant factors in this area are: i) the fact such courts are made up of active-duty military members who are hierarchically subordinate to higher-ranked officers through the chain of command; ii) the fact the their designation does not depend on their professional skills and qualifications to 102 IA Court of HR., Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Reparations. Judgment of November 27, 1998. Series C No. 42, par. 169; Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 1. par. 91. 103 IA Court of HR. Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. v. Chile, Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 154. par. 118; and Case of “The Last Temptation of Christ” (Olmedo Bustos et al) v. Chile. Judgment of February 5, 2001. Series C No. 73, par. 85. 104 ECHR, McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, Application no. No. 27229/95, September 1995, § 36. 105 ECHR, Milkhalkova and others v. Ukraine, Application no. 10919/05, 13 January 2011, § 42. 106 IACHR. Report 53/01. Case No. 11.565. Ana, Beatriz and Cecilia González Pérez. Mexico. April 4, 2001, par. 81. 19