inasmuch as its legal force is recognized over that of the ordinary jurisdiction, which are two aspects that are not compatible with regional standards.” Finally, it indicated that “the State should continue with its reform initiatives, taking into account the full application of the standards set out [in the J]udgment so that the scope of military criminal jurisdiction 'is restricted and exceptional and that it is directed only toward 'the protection of special military interests linked to functions that are unique to the armed forces'.” 20. The Tribunal observes that the State has carried out efforts to reform Article 57 of the Code of Military Criminal Justice. The Court considers it appropriate to recall that the Judgment established that, “taking into account the nature of the crime and the judicial right harmed, criminal military jurisdiction is not competent to investigate and, if applicable, try and punish the perpetrators of human rights violations. Instead, proceedings against 10 those responsible should always be carried out in an ordinary jurisdiction.” Based on the foregoing, in its Judgment, the Court found the State of Mexico responsible because the cited provision is “vague and imprecise, [and] impedes a determination of the strict connection between the crime belonging to the ordinary jurisdiction and military service, 11 objectively assessed,” and because “it extend[ed] military jurisdiction to crimes that do not have a strict connection to military discipline and to juridical rights that are unique to 12 the military sphere.” 21. With this in mind, the Court deems that although the State's efforts to amend Article 57 of the Code of Military Justice are a positive step, the proposed initiative is insufficient because it does not fully comply with the standards specified in the Judgment. This reform only sets forth that military jurisdiction shall have no jurisdiction in cases related only to forced disappearance, torture and rape committed by soldiers. However, in the Judgment, the Court reiterated its constant jurisprudence that, "the military justice system should only try military for the commission of crimes or offenses that by their very nature violate the legal rights of the military,"13 so that human rights violations committed by soldiers against 14 civilians can not be subject to the jurisdiction of military courts. 10 Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico, supra note 5, para. 273. 11 Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico, supra note 5, para. 286. 12 Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico, supra note 5, para. 289. 13 Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico, supra note 5, para. 277. Cfr. also Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 30, 1999. Series C No. 52, para. 128; Case of Durand and Ugarte v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of August 16, 2000. Series C No. 68, para. 117; Case of Caso Cantoral Benavides v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of August 18, 2000. Series C No. 69, para. 112; Case of Las Palmeras v. Colombia. Merits. Judgment of December 6, 2001. Series C No. 90, para. 51; Case of 19 Tradesmen v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 5, 2004. Series C No. 109, para. 165; Case of Lori Berenson Mejía v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2004. Series C No. 119, para. 142; Case of the "Mapiripán Massacre" v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134, para. 202; Case of Palamara Iribarne v. Chile. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 134, para. 124 and 132; Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140, para. 189; Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. v. Chile. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 154, para. 131; Case of La Cantuta v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 29, 2006. Series C No. 162, para. 142; Case of La Rochela Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C No. 163, para. 200; Case of Escué Zapata v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 165, para. 105; Case of Tiu Tojín v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 26, 2008. Series C No. 190, para. 118; Case of Usón Ramírez v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2009. Series C No. 207, paras. 108 and 110; Case of Fernández Ortega et al. v. Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgement of August 30, 2010, Series C. No. 215, para. 176; Case of Rosendo Cantú et al. Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgement of August 31, 2010, Series C. No. 216, para. 160, and Case of Cabrera 8