76 263. On October 6, 2005 Mrs. Tita Radilla Martínez filed an appeal for review against the mentioned ruling.268 On November 24, 2005 the First Collegiate Court ruled on that appeal, deciding to confirm the dismissal of the request for protection.269 264. After different processes before the First Military Court and the Fourth Military Judge, on November 29, 2006 the latter issued a ruling of dismissal due to the extinction of the criminal action because of the death of the defendant, who passed away on November 19th of that year.270 265. From the aforementioned, it can be concluded that the competence of the military jurisdiction to hear and rule on the facts regarding the arrest and subsequent forced disappearance of Mr. Radilla-Pacheco was appealed through two processes. The first of them, through an appeal for reversal filed by an agent of the military public prosecutors’ office against a ruling through which a military judge accepted the jurisdiction to hear the facts (supra para. 261). Said appeal for reversal resulted in a ruling of a collegiate Circuit Court that ruled in favor of the competence of the military jurisdiction (supra para. 261). On the other hand, Mrs. Tita Radilla filed an appeal of relief against the decision of a district court through which it had declared itself unfit to hear the facts of this case and it forwarded the case file to the military justice (supra para. 262). Said appeal was dismissed, reason for which subsequently Mrs. Tita Radilla filed an appeal for revision, which was also dismissed (supra paras. 262 through 263). The Court referred to these two matters separately. * * * 266. The Inter-American Commission stated that the military criminal jurisdiction constitutes a violation of Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, since it does not comply with the standards of the Inter-American system regarding cases that involve violations to human rights, mainly in what refers to the principle of the competent court. 267. On its part, the representatives argued that the criminal proceedings followed before the military justice system for the forced disappearance of Mr. Rosendo Radilla-Pacheco violates Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, as well as Article IX of the CIDFP, “[b]ecause the courts are not competent to hear a case of grave violations to human rights and infringe the principles of independence and impartiality.” The representatives also indicated that the State violated Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention, in relation with Article 2 of the same, “[f]or not having generated or modified the domestic legislation to prevent the military jurisdiction from hearing the cases that imply violations of human rights.” 268. The State argued that military jurisdiction is legally acknowledged in Mexico and that the term “military jurisdiction” included in the Constitution does not imply a privilege or 268 Cf. Appeal for review filed in legal representation of Tita Radilla Martínez, of October 6, 2005 (dossier of appendixes to the brief of pleadings and motions, appendix F(6), folios 2050 through 2070). 269 Cf. Judgment of the First Collegiate Court in Criminal and Administrative Matters of the Twenty-First Circuit, of November 24, 2005 (dossier of evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case presented by the State on November 2, 2009, folios 3223 and 3224). 270 Cf. Statement offered before notary public (affidavit) by Attorney Martha Patricia Valadez Sanabria (dossier of merits, volume IV, folio 1432), and brief of pleadings and motions (dossier of merits, volume I, folio 357 and 358). Respondent’s plea (dossier of merits, volume II, folio 704).