18 crimes or misdemeanors that, by their nature, harm the juridical interests of the military.5 52. The following consideration must be taken into account: [t]he military jurisdiction is established in several laws, in order to maintain order and discipline within the armed forces. Therefore, its application is reserved for military personnel who have committed crimes or misdemeanors in the performance of their duties and under certain circumstances … when the military courts assume jurisdiction over a matter that should be heard by the regular courts, the right to the appropriate judge is violated, as is, a fortiori, due process, which, in turn, is intimately linked to the right of access to justice.6 53. As has been previously stated, the judge hearing a case must be competent, independent and impartial.7 In the case sub judice, the very same military forces engaged in fighting the insurgent groups are those charged with prosecuting their peers for executing civilians, as the State itself has acknowledged. Consequently, from the very outset, the prosecution and punishment of those responsible should have been handled by the ordinary justice system, irrespective of whether the suspected authors were police officers in active service. Nevertheless, the State ordered that the military courts preside over the investigation into the Las Palmeras incident. The military justice system had that investigation underway for more than 7 years, until the case was finally transferred to the ordinary courts. The military courts never succeeded in identifying, prosecuting and convicting the responsible parties. 54. In conclusion the use of the military courts in this case did not guarantee due process in the meaning of Article 8(1) of the American Convention, which recognizes the right of the victims’ next of kin to a hearing by a competent, impartial and independent court. * * 55. In the case of the proceedings in the ordinary criminal justice system, the Human Rights Unit of the Office of the Prosecutor General of the Nation took up the case on May 14, 1998, after the First Criminal Court Prosecutor 233 asked the Inspector General of the National Police to serve as judge of first instance, to prosecute those suspected in the death of the victim in this case in the ordinary criminal justice system. It is important to note that as of the date of this judgment, this proceeding has not concluded, meaning that there is no definitive judgment naming, convicting and punishing those responsible. The criminal investigation of these events has now been underway for more than ten years, which shows that the administration of justice has been neither rapid nor effective. 5 Cantoral Benavides Case. Judgment of August 18, 2000. Series C No. 69, paragraph 113, and Durand and Ugarte Case, supra note 4, paragraph 117. 6 Cantoral Benavides Case. Series C No. 69 supra note 5, paragraph 112, and Castillo Petruzzi et al. Case, Judgment of May 30, 1999. Series C No. 52, paragraph 128. 7 Ivcher Bronstein Case. Judgment of February 6, 2001. Castillo Petruzzi et al. Case, supra note 6, paragraph 130 Series C No. 74, paragraph 112, and