39 that the Stated had not respected the guarantees of due process articulated in article 8 of the Convention. 143. The State, in turn, said that the alleged victims were members of the Armed Forces under the definition of military personnel, were tried for criminal conduct proper to the military arena as covered by the Code of Military Justice and endangered military assets, and this justified the exercise of military punitive power, and finally, the application of a sanction. Moreover, “military courts per se are not incompatible with the [Convention]. Their organization and concrete operations must be considered before deciding whether the principles of impartiality and independence of the judges have been impaired[.] In the case at hand, however, […] there has been no evidence of a single instance in which there was even the slightest suspicion of partiality or dependence by the judicial authorities who took part in the criminal proceedings.” It therefore asked the Court to hold that articles 8(1) and 11 of the Convention had not been breached. A.2 Considerations of the Court 144. Article 8(1) of the American Convention states, “[e]very person has the right to a hearing, with due guarantees and within a reasonable time, by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal, previously established by law, in the substantiation of any accusation of a criminal nature made against him or for the determination of his rights and obligations of a civil, labor, fiscal, or any other nature." 145. Article 25(1) says, “[e]veryone has the right to simple and prompt recourse, or any other effective recourse, to a competent court or tribunal for protection against acts that violate his fundamental rights recognized by the constitution or laws of the state concerned or by this Convention, even though such violation may have been committed by persons acting in the course of their official duties.” The Court has held, “[a]rticle 25(1) of the Convention establishes the obligation of the States Parties to guarantee, to all persons subject to their jurisdiction, an effective judicial remedy against acts that violate their fundamental rights. In addition to the formal existence of remedies, such effectiveness supposes that these provide results or responses to the violations of rights provided for in either the Convention, Constitution, or by law.”151 146. In principle, the jurisdictional function belongs intrinsically to the judicial branch, regardless of whether other bodies or public authorities may hold jurisdictional duties in certain specific situations. In other words, when the Convention refers to the right of everyone to be heard by a “competent...court or tribunal” for the “determination of his rights,” this expression refers to any public authority, be it administrative, legislative or judicial, whose decisions determine individual rights and obligations. For that reason, this Court considers that any State organ that exercises functions of a materially jurisdictional nature has the obligation to adopt decisions that are in consonance with the guarantees of due legal process in the terms of Article 8(1) of the American Convention.152 i) Judicial independence 151 Case of Mejía Idrovo v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 5, 2011, Series C No. 228, par. 95, and Case of Liakat Alibux v. Suriname, par. 116. 152 Cfr. Case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 31, 2001. Series C No. 71, par. 71, and Case of the Constitutional Court (Camba Campos et al.) v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 28, 2013. Series C No. 268, par. 166.