rules as a replacement for the jurisdiction that would normally be exercised by the ordinary courts.87 The idea is to prevent people from being tried by special or "ad hoc" tribunals.88 87. Applying the above to the trying of civilians in the military criminal justice system, the Court has pointed out that said jurisdiction: (...) in democratic States, in times of peace, has tended to be reduced and even disappear; therefore, in the case of a State that conserves it, its use should be minimal, as strictly necessary, and shall be inspired by the principles and guarantees governing modern criminal law. In a democratic State the military criminal jurisdiction shall have a restrictive and exceptional scope and shall be channeled to protect special juridical interests, related to the functions of the military forces under the law Hence, it should only try military personnel for committing crimes or misdemeanors that, due to their nature, harm the juridical interests of the military system.89 88. The Court has pointed out that the application of military justice must be strictly reserved for military in active service. For that reason, the Court has consistently declared that neither civilians nor "retired members of the military may be tried by military courts."90 89. In the instant case, it is undisputed that Mr. Cortez was tried under the military criminal justice system between February 1997 and November 1999, that is to say, for a period of two years and nine months, even though he had retired from the military. Accordingly, as indicated above, the Commission concludes that during the aforementioned period the State violated his right to be tried by a competent authority as stipulated in Article 8.1 of the American Convention in conjunction with the obligations established in Article 1.1 of the same instrument. 2. Regarding the right to know the charges against him, the right of defense, and the principle of presumption of innocence 90. The Commission recalls that, under Article 8.2.b of the American Convention, during proceedings the accused is entitled, with full equality, to prior notification in detail of the charges against him. As the InterAmerican Court has pointed out, in order to comply with Article 8.2.b, "the State must notify the accused not only of the charges against him, that is, the crimes or offenses he is charged with, but also of the reasons for them, and the evidence for such charges and the legal definition of the facts. The defendant has the right to know, through a clear, detailed and precise description, all the information of the facts in order to fully exercise his right to defense and prove to the judge his version of the facts. 91 91. At the same time, the Court has established that the right to professional legal defense (defensa técnica) must be necessarily exercised as from the moment a person is accused of being the perpetrator or participant of an illegal act and ends when the jurisdiction thereby ceases.92 In the case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador, the Court considered that the State violated the right to defense because the attorneys for the victims could not attend a key procedure of the proceedings against the victims in a drug trafficking offense.93 87 I/A Court H.R., Case of Barreto Leiva v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 17, 2009. Series C No. 206, par. 75. 88 I/A Court H.R., Case of Barreto Leiva v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 17, 2009. Series C No. 206, par. 75. 89 I/A Court HR. Case of Usón Ramírez v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2009. Series C No. 207, Par. 108. Cf. Durand and Ugarte Case v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of August 16, 2000. Series A No. 68, paragraph 117; Case of Tiu Tojín v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 26, 2008. Series C No. 190, par. 118; and Case of ZambranoVélez et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 166, par. 66. 90 I/A Court HR. Cesti Hurtado Case v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of September 29, 1999. Series C No. 56, par. 151; and the Palamara Iribarne Case, supra, note 47, par. 139. 91 I/A Court HR. Case of Barreto Leiva v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 17, 2009, par. 92 I/A Court HR. Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 26, 2010, Series C No. 220, par. 154; and Case of Barreto Leiva v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 17, 2009. Series C No. 206, par. 29. 93 I/A Court HR. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez. v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 21, 2007. Series C No. 170, par. 154. 17