36 necessary, and shall be inspired on the principles and guarantees that govern modern criminal law. In a democratic state of Law, the military criminal jurisdiction shall have a restrictive and exceptional scope and be directed toward the protection of special juridical interests, related t the tasks characteristic of the military forces. Therefore, the Tribunal has previously stated that only active soldiers shall be prosecuted within the military jurisdiction for the commission of crimes or 159 offenses that based on their own nature threaten the juridical rights of the military order itself. […] Likewise, [the] Court has established that, taking into account the nature of the crime and the legal right damaged, military courts are not the competent jurisdiction to investigate and, if 160 appropriate, try and punish the perpetrators of human rights violations but, rather, the 161 prosecution of those persons responsible should always be carried out by ordinary courts. 147. Thus, the offenses committed in the exercise of duties, which are the offenses that military courts can hear, are “punishable act[s] that must be interpreted as an excessive use or abuse of 162 power that occurs within the context of an activity directly linked to the actual role of the armed forces.” Moreover, “the link between the criminal act and the activity related to military service is broken when the 163 crime is extremely serious, as is the case of offenses against humankind. In those circumstances, the 164 case must be remitted to the civil courts.” 148. In that sense, the Commission concludes that arbitrary and extrajudicial executions cannot be considered offenses committed in the exercise of duties and, therefore, the investigation of the facts in the instant case should have been conducted by the ordinary courts. 149. For its part, the Inter-American Court has maintained that “[a]ll entities with essentially jurisdictional responsibilities have the obligation to adopt just decisions based on full respect for judicial 165 guarantees of due process established in Article 8 of the Convention.” Likewise, the principles relating to the investigation of arbitrary and extra-legal executions establish the responsibility of the States to conduct “an exhaustive, immediate and impartial investigation of all cases in which extra-legal, arbitrary 166 or summary executions are suspected,” and “to identify and bring those responsible to trial, and ensuring at the same time the right of every person to a fair and public trial before a competent, 167 independent and impartial tribunal, established by law.” 159 Corte IDH, Caso Radilla Pacheco vs. México. Sentencia de Excepciones preliminares, fondo, reparaciones y costas. 23 de noviembre de 2009, párr. 272, Caso Castillo Petruzzi y otros Vs. Perú, supra nota 54, párr. 128; Caso Durand y Ugarte Vs. Perú. Fondo. Sentencia de 16 de agosto de 2000. Serie C No. 68, párr. 117; Caso Cantoral Benavides Vs. Perú. Fondo. Sentencia de 18 de agosto de 2000. Serie C No. 69, párr. 112; Caso Las Palmeras Vs. Colombia. Fondo. Sentencia de 6 de diciembre de 2001. Serie C No. 90, párr. 51; Caso 19 Comerciantes Vs. Colombia. Fondo, Reparaciones y Costas. Sentencia de 5 de julio de 2004. Serie C No. 109, párr. 165; Caso Lori Berenson Mejía Vs. Perú, supra nota 54, párr. 142; Caso de la Masacre de Mapiripán Vs. Colombia, supra nota 129, párr. 202; Caso Palamara Iribarne Vs. Chile. Fondo, Reparaciones y Costas. Sentencia de 22 de noviembre de 2005. Serie C No. 135, párrs. 124 y 132; Caso de la Masacre de Pueblo Bello Vs. Colombia, supra nota 133, párr. 189; Caso Almonacid Arellano y otros Vs. Chile, supra nota 19, párr. 131; Caso La Cantuta Vs. Perú, supra nota 51, párr. 142; Caso de la Masacre de la Rochela Vs. Colombia, supra nota 83, párr. 200; Caso Escué Zapata Vs. Colombia, supra nota 56, párr. 105, y Caso Tiu Tojín Vs. Guatemala, supra nota 24, párr. 118. 160 IA Court H.R., Case Radilla Pacheco vs. México. Judgment of Preliminary exceptions, merits, reparations and costs. November 23, 2009, par. 273, Case of the Massacre de la Rochela vs. Colombia, supra note 83, par. 200, and Case Escué Zapata vs. Colombia, supra note 56, par. 105. 161 IA Court H.R., Case Radilla Pacheco vs. Mexico. Judgment of Preliminary exceptions, merits, reparations and costs. November 23, 2009, par. 273, Case Durand y Ugarte Vs. Peru, supra note 274, par. 118; Case La Cantuta Vs. Peru, supra note 51, par. 142; and, Case of the Massacre de la Rochela Vs. Colombia, supra note 83, par. 200. 162 Constitutional Court of Colombia, decision C-358 of August 5, 1997. In that regard see, IACHR, Third report on the Human Rights situation in Colombia, par. 30. 163 164 Constitutional Court of Colombia, decisions C-358 of August 5, 1997. In that regard see IACHR. Third report on the Human Rights situation in Colombia, par. 30. 165 IA Court H.R. Case López Álvarez. Judgment of February 1, 2006. Series C No. 141. par.148; IA Court H.R., Case Palamara Iribarne, Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 135 par. 164; IA Court H.R., Case Yatama. Judgment of June 23, 2005. Series C No. 127, par. 149; IA Court H.R. Case Ivcher Bronstein. Judgment of February 6, 2001. Series C No. 74, par. 104. 166 United Nations Social and Economic Council. Principles regarding the effective prevention and investigation of extralegal, arbitrary or summary executions. Resolution 1989/65, of May 24, 1989. 167 United Nations General Assembly. Resolution 59/197. Extra-legal, summary or arbitrary executions (A/RES/59/197), Mrch 10, 2005