78 subparagraph a) of the Code of Military Justice,272 it can be inferred that “[t]he military courts will hear of the crimes against military discipline, […] and said category includes the crime[s] of common or federal order, when they are committed by soldiers, in the exercise of their duties.” Finally, it stated that given that the fact that had probably been committed by Mr. Quiroz Hermosillo was that of illegal deprivation of freedom in its modality of plagiarism or kidnapping, established and punished by the “[C]riminal Code for the District and Federal Territories in Common Matters and for the entire Republic in Matters of the Federal Jurisdiction, in force at the time of the commission of the criminal event,” said crime was considered contrary to military discipline, thus it was “[a]n exclusive power of the military justice to hear and decide upon this matter.273” 272. The Tribunal considers it appropriate to state that it has repeatedly established that the military criminal jurisdiction in democratic states, in times of peace, has tended to be reduced and has even disappeared, reason for which, if a State conserves it, its use shall be minimum, as strictly necessary, and shall be inspired on the principles and guarantees that govern modern criminal law. In a democratic State of law, the military criminal jurisdiction shall have a restrictive and exceptional scope and be directed toward the protection of special juridical interests, related to the tasks characteristic of the military forces. Therefore, the Tribunal has previously stated that only active soldiers shall be prosecuted within the military jurisdiction for the commission of crimes or offenses that based on their own nature threaten the juridical rights of the military order itself.274 273. Likewise, this Court has established that, taking into account the nature of the crime and the juridical right damaged, military criminal jurisdiction is not the competent over people that do not belong to the army. When a civilian is involved in a crime or offense of a military nature, the corresponding civil authority will hear the case. Cf. Political Constitution of the United Stated of Mexico (dossier of appendixes to the respondent’s plea, appendix III(6), page 8). 272 The Code of Military Justice states, in its relevant parts, that: Article 57.- The crimes against military discipline are: […] II.- those of the common or federal order, when any of the following circumstances are present in their commission: a).- That they be committed by soldiers during times of duty or based on the actions of the same; […] Cf. Code of Military Justice published in the Official Gazette of the Federation on August 31, 1933, text in force (http://www.diputados.gob.mx/LeyesBiblio/pdf/4.pdf). 273 Cf. Judgment of the First Collegiate Court in Criminal and Administrative Matters of the Twenty-First Circuit in the Conflict Regarding Criminal Jurisdiction 6/2005 of October 27, 2005 (dossier of appendixes to the brief of pleadings and motions, appendix G(6), folios 2128, 2129, and 2135). 274 Cf. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru, supra note 54, para. 128; Case of Durand and Ugarte v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of August 16, 2000. Series C No. 68, para. 117; Case of 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, supra note 54, para. 142; Case of the Mapiripán Massacre v. Colombia, supra note 129, para. 202; Case of Palamara Iribarne v. Chile. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No 135, paras. 124 and 132; Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia, supra note 133, para. 189; Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. v. Chile, supra note 19, para. 131; Case of La Cantuta v. Peru, supra note 51, para. 142; Case of the Massacre of La Rochela v. Colombia, supra note 83, para. 200; Case of Escué Zapata v. Colombia, supra note 56, para. 105, and Case of Tiu Tojín v. Guatemala, supra note 24, para. 118.