Alejandro Casierra’s physical integrity was violated. The use of force in a disproportionate manner and without legitimate purpose or necessity is attributable to the State of Ecuador as a result of the actions of its agents. 49 Thus, the Commission concludes that Ecuador is responsible for violation of Luis Eduardo Casierra’s rights to life and humane treatment recognized in Articles 4(1) and 5(1) of the American Convention, taken in conjunction with the obligations contained in Article 1(1) of that instrument, bearing in mind his death and his suffering prior thereto as a consequence of the gunshot wounds. The Commission also finds that Ecuador is responsible for violation of Andrés Alejandro Casierra’s right to humane treatment recognized at Article 5(1) of the American Convention taken in conjunction with the obligations contained in Article 1(1) of the same instrument. B. Rights to a fair trial and judicial protection (Articles 8.150 and 25.151 of the American Convention, in connection with Articles 1.1 and 2 of the same instrument) 65. Both the IACHR and the Court have determined that in cases concerning violent deaths, especially those in which state agents may be involved, the investigation must be conducted using all available legal means to determine the truth and to investigate, prosecute and punish all those responsible for the deeds.52 In addition, states are required to provide a simple and prompt recourse, so that, inter alia, those responsible for human rights violations may be prosecuted and the victims obtain reparations for the harm suffered.53 66. Furthermore, in cases where death may have been the consequence of the use of lethal force by state agents, the European Court has found that the “most careful scrutiny” must be used, taking into consideration “not only the actions of the agents of the State who actually administer the force but also all the surrounding circumstances including such matters as the planning and control of the actions under examination.”54 Thus, “[a]ny deficiency in the investigation which undermines its ability to establish the cause of death or the person responsible will risk falling foul of this standard.” 55 67. The Commission recalls that special jurisdictions, such as the military criminal justice system, should have a restricted and exceptional scope and be designed to protect special juridical interests associated with the entity itself.56 Thus, the Inter-American Court has also had occasion to analyze the structure and composition of special tribunals, such as military courts, in the light of the United Nations Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary. A number of relevant factors are: (i) that they are made up of active-duty officers who are hierarchically subordinate to higher-ranked officers through the chain of command; (ii) that their designation does not depend on their professional skills and qualifications to exercise judicial functions; and (iii) that they do not have sufficient guarantees that they will not be removed. This has led to the conclusion that such tribunals lack the necessary independence and impartiality to take cognizance of human rights violations.57 68. Taking the above criteria into account, the Inter-American Court has referred to the incompatibility with the American Convention of the use of military criminal tribunals in cases involving I/A Court H.R., Case of Nadege Dorezma v. Dominican Republic, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment of October 24, 2012. Series C. No. 251, par. 91. 50 Article 8.1. Every person has the right to a hearing, with due guarantees and within a reasonable time, by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal, previously established by law, in the substantiation of any accusation of a criminal nature made against him or for the determination of his rights and obligations of a civil, labor, fiscal, or any other nature. 51 Article 25.1. Everyone has the right to simple and prompt recourse, or any other effective recourse, to a competent court or tribunal for protection against acts that violate his fundamental rights recognized by the constitution or laws of the state concerned or by this Convention, even though such violation may have been committed by persons acting in the course of their official duties. 52 IACHR, Report No. 41/15, Cases 12.335, 12.336, 12.757, and 12.711, Merits, Gustavo Giraldo Villamizar Durán et al. Colombia, July 28, 2015, par. 195. See also I/A Court H.R., Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre” v. Colombia, Judgment of September 15, 2005, Series C. No. 122, par. 219; and Case of Mendoza et al. v. Argentina, Preliminary Objections, Merits and Reparations, Judgment of May 14, 2013. Series C. No. 260, par. 218. 53 I/A Court H.R., Loayza Tamayo Case v. Peru, Reparations. Judgment of November 27, 1998. Series C. No. 42, par. 169. 54 ECHR, McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, Application no. 27229/95, September 1995, § 36. 55 ECHR, Milkhalkova and others v. Ukraine, Application no. 10919/05, 13 January 2011, § 42. 42. 56 IACHR, Report 53/01, Case 11.565, Ana, Beatriz, and Cecilia González Pérez, Mexico, April 4, 2001, par. 81. 57 I/A Court H.R., Case of Palamara Iribarne v. Chile, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 22, 2005, Series C, No. 135, pars. 155-156. 49 10