33 129. With regard to the State’s procedural activity, the proven facts before this Commission show that on June 29, 2001 – that is to say eight months after the petitioners presented the complaint – Mr. Quispealaya told Dr. Chang how the military instructor had beaten him in the right eye during training and had threatened him, and Dr. Chang informed the Brigade General of Huancayo of these events on July 6, 2001, yet there was no investigation into them, despite the State’s obligation to initiate an investigation ex officio and immediately which allow in an immediately, independently and thoroughly manner to determine the nature and origin of the injuries, identify those responsible and start their processing. The incompatibility of the military jurisdiction to try ordinary crimes 130. The Commission notes that alter the 5th Criminal Court of Huancayo ordered the opening of an investigation on October 21, 2002, General Commander of the 31st DI Huancayo told the Permanent War Council of the Second Judicial Area about the circumstances in which Mr. Quispealaya had lost the vision in his right eye (November 4, 2002), and this communication led to the dispute over jurisdiction by the Permanent Miltiary Judge of Huancayo on November 19, 2002 and in the accused’s failure to appear before the 5th Criminal Court of Huancayo, as well as the resistance of the military courts and soldiers to carry out his arrest, just as the 5th Judge of the Criminal Court of Huancayo observed on March 12, 2003. As a result, the Commission considers that initiating proceedings in the military courts only had the effect of complicating the proceedings that had started in the civil courts. 131. The Commission further notes that on May 12, 2003, the Permanent Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court resolved the conflict of jurisdiction in favor of the military courts, based on the consideration that the crime committed was one that occurred in the course of duty. Similarly, the Commission observes that on November 30, 2004, Mr. Quispealaya presented a motion to transfer the case to the civil courts, which was again resolved in favor of the military courts. In this sense, the Commission reiterates that the military courts should only be used to try active soldiers for the alleged commission of offenses in the course of duty in the strictest sense. Human rights violations must be investigated, tried and punished according to the law by ordinary criminal courts. The inversion of jurisdiction in this area should not be permitted, because this undermines judicial guarantees under the false pretense of effectiveness of military justice and implicates serious institutional consequences which question the civil courts and the rule of law.116 Specifically, the IACHR has determined that given its nature and structure, the criminal military jurisdiction does not satisfy the requirements of independence and impartiality that Article 8(1) of the American Convention requires in cases involving human rights violations.117 Civil jurisdiction 132. The Commission considers that although the proceedings were transferred from the military courts to the civil courts alter the judgment of the Constitutional Tribunal of December 15, 116 IACHR, Application presented to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Valentina Rosendo Cantú and others vs. Mexico, August 2, 2009, para. 123; IACHR, Second Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Peru, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.106, doc. 59 rev. June 2, 2000, Chapter II, para. 214. 117 IACHR, Application presented to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Valentina Rosendo Cantú and others vs. Mexico, August 2, 2009, para. 126; IACHR, Report No. 53/01, Case 11.565, Ana Beatriz and Celia González Pérez (México), April 4, 2001, para. 81.