75 cannot be invoked when dealing with the investigation of grave violations of fundamental rights or crimes against humanity.”263 258. Taking into account the aforementioned, and in application of Article 29(b) of the American Convention, the Court considers that it should be understood that the victims’ right in this case to obtain copies of the preliminary inquiry carried out by the Attorney General of the Republic is not subject to reservations of confidentiality, since it refers to the investigation of crimes that constitute grave violations to human rights, such as the forced disappearance of Mr. Rosendo Radilla-Pacheco. Therefore, the victims in the present case shall have access to the case file and the right to request and obtain copies of the same, since the information included in it is not subject to reservation. 259. Therefore, the Tribunal considers that the State violated Mrs. Tita Radilla Martinez’s right to participate in the investigation and criminal process regarding the facts of the present case and, therefore, Article 8(1) of the American Convention. B. Actions of the military jurisdiction 260. The Second District Court in the State of Guerrero issued a ruling in which it ordered the arrest of Mr. Francisco Quiroz Hermosillo and declined its competence in reason of the jurisdiction in favor of the corresponding Military Court. The matter fell upon the First Military Judge attached to the First Military Region (hereinafter, “First Military Judge”), who accepted the competence and, therefore, ordered that file 1513/2005 be opened.264 261. The Agent of the corresponding Military Public Prosecutors’ Office filed an appeal for reversal against the order through which the First Military Judge accepted the jurisdiction set forth. On October 27, 2005 the First Collegiate Court in Criminal and Administrative Matters of the Twenty-First Circuit (hereinafter, “First Collegiate Court”) resolved that said military court was competent to hear the case in question.265 262. On the other hand, on September 6, 2005 Mrs. Tita Radilla Martínez filed a request for protection against the resolution of lack of jurisdiction of the Second District Court.266 The Sixth District Court in the State of Guerrero (hereinafter, “Sixth District Court”) flatly disregarded this accusation.267 263 In this regard, Article 36 of the Rules of Procedure of the Federal Law on Transparency and access to Public Governmental Information, published in the Official Gazette of the Federation on June 11, 2003 (http://www.ifai.org.mx/AcercaIfai/Marco), states that “[f]or the effects of Article 14 of the Law, grave violations to fundamental rights and crimes against humanity will be understood as those defined as such in the treaties ratified by the Senate of the Republic or in the resolutions issued by international organizations whose competence is acknowledged by the State of Mexico, as well as in applicable legal stipulations.” 264 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 2095 through 2096), and statement offered before notary public (affidavit) by Attorney Martha Patricia Valadez Sanabria (dossier of merits, volume IV, folio 1431). 265 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 2096 through 2140), and statement offered before notary public (affidavit) by Attorney Martha Patricia Valadez Sanabria (dossier of merits, volume IV, folio 1431 and 1432) 266 Cf. Request for legal protection signed by Tita Radilla Martínez, of September 6, 2005 (dossier of appendixes to the brief of pleadings and motions, appendix F(2), folios 1989 through 2029). 267 Cf. Judgment of the Sixth District Court in the State of Guerrero, of September 6, 2005, dossier PRAL. 854/2005 (dossier of appendixes to the brief of pleadings and motions, appendix F(4), folios 2030 through 2039).