criminal jurisdiction must take place within a “reasonable time,”10 almost six years after the judgment was delivered, the process of complying with these measures of reparation are still at the initial stage. 21. Additionally, the Court considers it appropriate to recall that the judgment in the instant case concluded that “should [Chile] consider it necessary to retain a military criminal jurisdiction, this should be restricted to hearing offenses committed during the course of duty by members of the military on active service. Thus, the State must establish, by law, [clear] limits to the material and personal competence of the military courts so that, under no circumstances, may a civilian be subject to the jurisdiction of the military criminal courts, in the terms of paragraphs 256 and 257 of the […] judgment.”11 In this regard, the Court recalls its reiterated case law that “the military criminal jurisdiction must be of a limited scope and exceptional nature, and its intention must be the protection of the special juridical interests related to the functions that the law assigns to the Armed Forces. Consequently, only members of the military should be tried for committing offenses or misdemeanors that, by their very nature, affect the juridical interests of the military.”12 Therefore, for domestic law to be in keeping with international standards for the military criminal jurisdiction, the reform of the law must comply with these aspects in order to be compatible with the measure of reparation ordered in the judgment. 22. Based on these considerations, the Inter-American Court finds that Chile must continue to submit detailed and updated information on the measures taken to comply with the fourteen and fifteenth operative paragraphs of the judgment, including submission of all the relevant documentation. In its next brief, the State should refer specifically to: (a) the content and present legislative status of all the bills to reform the military justice system, and how they conform to the standards described in the judgment delivered in this case, and (b) the actions required and the estimated time frames to achieve a complete reform of the military justice system in Chile, in order to comply with the measures ordered by the Court. Furthermore, the Court asks the State to clarify: (c) whether, within the current legal framework, including Law No. 20,477, a retired member of the military is considered to be a civilian for the effects of the application of the military criminal jurisdiction and, as appropriate, to submit information on whether the military criminal jurisdiction has been applied to retired military personnel after the judgment in this case was delivered, and (d) 10 Cf. Case of Palamara Iribarne, supra note 7, para. 254. 11 Cf. Case of Palamara Iribarne, supra note 7, para. 256. 12 Cf. 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 Durand and Ugarte v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of August 16, 2000. Series C No. 68, para. 117; Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of August 18, 2000. Series C No. 69, para. 13; Case of Las Palmeras v. Colombia. Merits. Judgment of December 6, 2001. Series C No. 90, para. 51; Case of the 19 Tradesmen v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 5, 2004. Series C No. 109, para. 165; Case of Lori Berenson Mejía v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2004. Series C No. 119, para. 142; Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre” v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134, para. 202; Case of Palamara Iribarne, supra note 7, para. 124 and 132; Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140, para. 189; Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. v. Chile. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 154, para. 131; Case of La Cantuta v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 29, 2006. Series C No. 162, para. 142; Case of the La Rochela Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C No. 163, para. 200; Case of Escué Zapata v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 165, para. 105; Case of Tiu Tojín v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 26, 2008. Series C No. 190, para. 118; Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 23, 2009. Series C No. 209, and Case Fernández Ortega et al. v. Mexico. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 30, 2010. Series C No. 215, para. 176. 8