protecting special legal interests, related to tasks incumbent upon the military entity itself. In this regard, the Court has had the opportunity to examine the structure and composition of special courts, such as military ones, in light of the United Nations Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary. Some of the relevant factors are: i) the fact that their members are active duty officers and are subordinate to the hierarchy of their superiors on the chain of command; ii) the fact that their appointment is not contingent upon their professional competence and qualifications to perform the duties of judges; and iii) the fact that they do not have sufficient assurances of not being removed. The conclusion can be drawn from this that said courts lack independence and impartiality to hear cases of human rights violations.233 159. The Commission and the Court have addressed how the use of the military criminal jurisdiction to hear cases of human rights violations is incompatible with the Convention, noting how problematic it is to ensure independence and impartiality in such instances, because it is the armed forces themselves who are “in charge of trying their own peers for the execution of civilians.”234Likewise, when special jurisdictions are involved, such as the military jurisdiction, the Court has held that active-duty personnel should be prosecuted “within the military jurisdiction for the commission of crimes or offenses, that based on their own nature, threaten the juridical rights of the military order itself.”235 Additionally, in light of the aforementioned standards in the European human rights system regarding this type of case, the European Court has stressed that the need for the persons in charge of the investigation be different from those who are implicated in the crimes, lies in the assurance of hierarchical, institutional and functional independence in the authority, who is the trier of fact.236 160. Accordingly, in the instant case, the participation of members of the Armed Forces, an institution to which the National Guard belongs, in performance of adjudicatory and investigatory duties, renders said jurisdiction unable to provide for the safeguards of independence and impartiality to hear cases that could entail human rights violations and involve international responsibility of the State. In this same vein, independently of the fact that the alleged victim and those possibly responsible for his death were all officers of the National Guard, military criminal justice must have a restrictive scope and not be used in the investigation and prosecution of potential crimes that could constitute human rights violations. 161. In the context of the instant case, the nature of the actions and evidence gathering, which had to be conducted during the time that the case remained under military jurisdiction, are elements which amount to a factor of immunity in the case, which has hampered the determination of the truth and potential punishment for those responsible. 162. As for the importance of the actions of the authorities, who conducted the initial evidence gathering in the investigation, the Court has said that: Due diligence together with the criteria of independence and impartiality also extend to the non-judicial bodies responsible for the investigation prior tothe judicial proceedings, conducted to determine the circumstances of a death and the existence of sufficient evidence. In the absence of these requirements, the State cannot exercise effectively and 233I/A Court H.R., Case of Palamara Iribarne vs. Chile. Mertis, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 22, 2005, Series C, No. 135. Para. 155 and 156. 234I/A Court H.R., Case of Las Palmeras vs. Colombia. Merits. Judgment of December 6, 2001. Series C No. 90, para. 53. Also see, for example: IACHR, Report No. 10/95, Case 10.580, Manuel Stalin Bolaños Quiñonez, Ecuador, September 12, 1995. In this regard, for more than twenty years, the Commission has been holding that victims and their next-of-kin are entitled to a judicial investigation, conducted by a criminal court designated to establish and punish responsibility for human rights violations (See, in general, reports number 28/92 (Argentina) and 29/92 (Uruguay), Annual Report (1992-93). 235I/A Court H.R., Case of Radilla Pacheco vs. Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 23, 2009. Series C No. 209, para. 272. 236 See ECHR, Sergey Shevchenko vs. Ukraine, no. 32478/02, § 64.