potential human rights violations, noting that the fact that the very same military forces are those “charged with prosecuting their peers for executing civilians” is problematic for the guarantee of independence and impartiality.58 Accordingly, the Inter-American court has found as a special jurisdiction, military courts “should only try military personnel for committing crimes or misdemeanors that, due to their nature, harm the juridical interests of the military system.”59 69. In the instant case, the Commission notes that the investigation of the Ecuadorian Navy personnel who took part in the killing and wounding of the Casierra brothers was conducted in the military criminal jurisdiction. Given that the facts concern human rights violations, specifically violations of the rights to life and humane treatment, they cannot be regarded as possible offenses committed in the line of duty and, therefore, the investigation should have been carried out in the regular jurisdiction. 70. Furthermore, the Commission also finds that the application of military justice in this particular case was due to the fact that Articles 187 of the Constitution and 2 of the Military Code of Criminal Procedure were in force; those provisions did not clearly establish that acts such as those that occurred in the instant case could not be considered as falling under the jurisdiction of the military criminal courts, even if they were committed by military personnel in the course of their duties. As a result, in this specific case, the military courts assumed jurisdiction solely on the basis of those factors and without taking into account the nature of the acts and the legal interests involved. 71. In addition, the petitioner alleged that the relatives of the Casierra brothers were repeatedly prevented from participating in the proceedings in the military criminal jurisdiction as a civilian party or from being heard in same. The petitioner added that, in addition, there was no progress in the criminal proceeding against the civilian who was on the Ecuadorian Navy vessel. The Commission finds that the State has not contested those facts or furnished any information in that regard. 72. Based on the above, the Commission concludes that, by applying military criminal justice in the instant case, the Ecuadorian State violated the rights to a fair trial and judicial protection, specifically the right to a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal and the right to effective recourse to a competent court or tribunal, in accordance with Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention, taken in conjunction with Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof, to the detriment of the Casierra brothers’ relatives. C. Right to humane treatment of the relatives of the Casierra brothers (Article 5.1 of the American Convention, in connection with Article 1.1 of that instrument) 73. Article 5(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights provides, “Every person has the right to have his physical, mental, and moral integrity respected." In relation to the relatives of victims of gross human rights violations, the Inter-American Court has held that in certain instances it may be presumed that their right to humane treatment has been violated based on the suffering and anxiety generated by the circumstances of such cases.60 Furthermore, the Commission has determined that “the single loss of a loved one as a consequence of the arbitrary use of force by security forces, in an ongoing context of threats and defenselessness, followed by the further lack of clarification and impunity, permits the inference of an adverse effect on the physical and psychological integrity of the immediate family unit of those killed.”61 74. In addition, the Court has held: [T]he absence of a complete and effective investigation into the facts constitutes a source of additional suffering and anguish for victims and their next of kin, who have the right to know the truth of what happened. This right to the truth requires a procedural determination of the most complete historical truth I/A Court H.R., Las Palmeras v. Colombia, Merits, Judgment of December 6, 2001. Series C. No. 90, par. 53. I/A Court H.R., Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of November 23, 2009. Series C. No. 209, par. 272. 60 I/A Court H.R., Case of Blake v. Guatemala, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment of January 24, 1998. Series C. No. 36, par. 114. 61 IACHR, Report No. 11/10. Case 12.488, Merits, Barrios Family, Venezuela, July 26, 2010, par. 227. 58 59 11