86 provision satisfies the requirements established in Article XIX of that instrument, that is, if it is compatible with the objective and purpose of the treaty and if it refers to specific stipulations (supra para. 302). Compliance with these requirements does not constitute a mere formality; it is a material condition of the treaty that shall be met in order to guarantee that the reservation made does not exceed the limits of that expressly permitted in the same.298 306. The Court observes that the State’s reservation was presented in the following terms: The Government of the United Mexican States, upon ratifying the Inter-American Convention on the Forced Disappearance of Persons adopted in Belem, Brazil on June 9, 1994 makes express reservation to Article IX, inasmuch as the Political Constitution recognizes military jurisdiction when a member of the armed forces commits an illicit act while on duty. Military jurisdiction does not constitute a special jurisdiction in the sense of the Convention given that according to Article 14 of the Mexican Constitution nobody may be deprived of his life, liberty, property, possessions, or rights except as a result of a trial before previously established courts in which due process is observed in accordance with laws promulgated prior to the fact. 307. Regarding its compatibility with the objective and purpose of the treaty, the Tribunal warns that, through the reservation, Mexico establishes that the military jurisdiction is competent to hear a case of forced disappearance if a member of the armed forces commits the crime while on duty. This implies a reference to a jurisdiction that in order to be applied requires a personal, not a material, classification. It is not stated that an analysis of the juridical interests behind the crime is necessary, nor is the military discipline or any other military juridical interest used as a point of reference. Likewise, upon adding a reservation to Article IX of the CIDFP, the State of Mexico is establishing a general rule on the competence of the military criminal jurisdiction. As has been mentioned by this Court,299 military justice is of an exceptional nature that necessarily requires a justification in the specific case (supra para. 272). 308. The objective and purpose of a treaty such as the CIDFP is the effective protection of the human rights acknowledged therein. In terms of its Article I, its specific purpose is to guarantee the effective prevention, punishment, and suppression of the practice of forced disappearance of persons, avoiding its effects, namely, the multiple violations of human rights. For this, said Convention has stipulated a series of obligations, through which the State Parties undertake: “a) Not to practice, permit, or tolerate the forced disappearance of persons, even in states of emergency or suspension of individual guarantees; b) To punish within their jurisdictions, those persons who commit or attempt to commit the crime of forced disappearance of persons and their accomplices and accessories; c) To cooperate with one another in helping to prevent, punish, and eliminate the forced disappearance of persons; and d) To take legislative, administrative, judicial, and any other measures necessary to comply with the commitments undertaken in this Convention.” 309. One of the rights protected in the CIDFP, which tends to achieve the effective punishment of the authors of the crime of forced disappearance, is that of a competent tribunal, necessarily linked to the right to a due process of law and to a fair trial, acknowledged in Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention (supra para. 273), rights that are nonrevocable. Thus, Article IX of the CIDFP, beyond being a rule on 298 As has been considered by the European Court of Human Rights. Cf. Case of Belilos v. Switzerland, supra note 295, para. 59. 299 Cf. Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru. Merits, supra note 274, para. 113; Case of 19 Tradesmen, supra note 274, para. 165, and Case of Tiu Tojín v. Guatemala, supra note 24, para. 118.