and the legal interest violated, the military criminal jurisdiction is not the competent jurisdiction to investigate and, if appropriate, prosecute and punish the authors of human rights violations; to the contrary, the prosecution of those responsible always corresponds to the common or ordinary system of justice. 247 248. In addition, the Court has repeatedly affirmed that the military jurisdiction should observe the following standards or parameters: 248 (a) this jurisdiction is not competent to investigate and, if appropriate, prosecute and punish the authors of any violation of human rights; 249 (b) it can only try members of the armed forces on active duty, 250 and (c) it can only try crimes or misdemeanors (committed by members of the armed forces on active duty) that, due to their nature, violate specific legal interests of the armed forces. 251 b. Declaratory civil action 249. In view of the fraudulent result of Military Police Investigation No. 1173-75 and the legal impossibility that the State organs would conduct an effective investigation into the torture and death of Vladimir Herzog, his family filed a declaratory action. Despite the civil nature of that proceeding, the trial judgment (supra paras. 132 to 134) established that: (i) Vladimir Herzog had died of unnatural causes when he was in the DOI/CODI/SP; (ii) the Union was unable to prove its hypothesis of Mr. Herzog’s suicide; (iii) his detention had been illegal; (iv) the supplementary report of the military jurisdiction was worthless because it had been prepared based on the autopsy report that had been proved to have been fabricated; (v) a crime of abuse of authority had been committed, as well as of torture perpetrated against Vladimir Herzog and the other political prisoners who were detained in the DOI/CODI. Lastly, the federal judge determined that the case file should be forwarded to the prosecutor of the military jurisdiction. However, the military prosecutor took no action in this regard. The Union appealed the trial judgment, but it became final on September 27, 1995 (supra para. 135). c. The Amnesty Law and Police Investigation No. 487/92 250. On August 29, 1979, Amnesty Law No. 6683/79 was enacted. In 1992, following the publication of an interview with a known torturer, Pedro Antonio Mira Grancieri, who stated that he alone had been responsible for the interrogation of Vladimir Herzog, the Public Prosecution Service of the state of São Paulo was asked to investigate the participation of Mira Grancieri in the death of Vladimir Herzog. The Public Prosecution Service asked the police to 247 Cf. Case of the La Rochela Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C No. 163, para. 200, and Case of Ortiz Hernández et al. v. Venezuela, para. 148. Cf. Case of Quispialaya Vilcapoma v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 23, 2015. Series C No. 308, para. 146. 248 Cf. Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 23, 2009. Series C No. 209, para. 273, Case of Fernández Ortega et al. v. Mexico. Preliminary objection, Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 30, 2010. Series C No. 215, para. 176, Case of Rosendo Cantú et al. v. Mexico. Preliminary objection, Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2010. Series C No. 216, para. 160, Case of Escué Zapata v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 165, para. 105, Case of the Santa Barbara Campesino Community v. Peru, para. 245, Case of Quispialaya Vilcapoma v. Peru, para. 146, and Case of Ortiz Hernández et al. v. Venezuela, para. 148. 249 250 Cf. Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico, para. 272, Case of Fernández Ortega et al. v. Mexico, para. 176, and Case of Rosendo Cantú et al. v. Mexico, para. 160, Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 30, 1999. Series C No. 52, para. 128, Case of Quispialaya Vilcapoma v. Peru, para. 146, and Case of Ortiz Hernández et al. v. Venezuela, para. 148. Cf. Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico, para. 313, Case of Fernández Ortega et al. v. Mexico, para. 179, and Case of Rosendo Cantú et al. v. Mexico, para. 163, Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs, para. 128, Case of Quispialaya Vilcapoma v. Peru, para. 146, and Case of Ortiz Hernández et al. v. Venezuela, para. 148. 251 62