subsequently under the Code of Criminal Procedure.” The reform initiative also includes modifications to the Organic Law of the Federal Judicial Branch in order to give “district court judges criminal jurisdiction so that they can try crimes committed by members of the military under the terms proposed.” Last, the State indicated that “the discussion and, if applicable, the modification and approval of [the] legislative reform shall be […] the task of the Federal Judicial Branch.”9 Finally, it indicated that the State manifested that "although the operative paragraphs of the [Judgment] did not provide for the withdrawal of the reservation made by the [State] on Article IX of the [Inter-American Convention on the Forced Disappearance of People,] it did analyze the matter." Thus, the State has “motu proprio initiated the corresponding internal processes to eventually retract the reservation, and this process is linked to the initiatives for the reforms of the Code of Military Justice brought before the Congress of the Union.” 18. The representatives stated that “the reform proposed by the Federal Executive [...] does not conform with guidelines for independence and impartiality guarantees required under Article 8(1) of the American Convention.” They also indicated that “the initiative only proposed the exclusion of the crimes of forced disappearance of persons, torture, and rape from the military criminal jurisdiction so that they fall under the [ordinary] jurisdiction, [but] the power to investigate and the power to analyze whether the facts fall under a normative category remains in the hands of the Office of the Prosecutor General of Military Justice.” They stated that with this reform, “there is a risk that the crimes may be reclassified so as to prevent them from being tried in a civilian court” and that there is a risk that the facts may be manipulated. The representatives also indicated that there continues to be “a lack of domestic recourses for questioning the jurisdiction of military authorities to prosecute and/or adjudicate the facts.” 19. The Commission affirmed that it “value[d] the State’s legislative initiative.” However, it “observe[d] that pursuant to the proposed reform, Article 57 of the Code of Military Justice d[id] not fully adhere to the standards established [in the J]udgment.” It indicated that, in particular, “it consider[ed] that the law should be written in such a way so that it is clear that the military jurisdiction should only intervene when crimes or wrongs are committed by military personnel and, by nature, affect juridical rights that are unique to the military.” Additionally, it stated that it observed from the proposed reform that, "it would be possible for the military jurisdiction to intervene in the investigation of a crime that does not belong to it and that this intervention could limit proceedings in the ordinary jurisdiction 9 The following is the text of the initative reform: Article 57.- … I. … II. … a). … The crimes of Forced Disappearance of Persons, Rape, and Torture, provided for under Articles 215-A, 265, and 266 of the Federal Criminal Code, as well as Articles 3 and 5 of the Federal Law for the Prevention and Punishment of Torture, committed to the detriment of civilians, shall fall under the jurisdiction of the Federal Tribunals. When investigations into the a crime evidence the probable commission of one of those crimes signaled in the preceding paragraph, the Military Prosecutor must immediately, through the corresponding agreement, detail proceedings carried out and records made in the preliminary inquiry and turn the information over to the Attorney General's Office. The proceedings detailed will not lose their validity, even when they were carried out under this Code and, later, under the Code of Criminal Procedure. b). a e). … In cases under Section II where both members of the military and civilians are implicated, the former shall be tried by military courts, except in cases falling under the second paragraph of subsection a) of Section II. In such cases, the corresponding federal tribunals shall have jurisdiction, notwithstanding the jurisdiction of the military tribunals over crimes committed against military discipline. … 7