40 147. This Court has held that one of the principal purposes of the separation of public powers is to guarantee the independence of judges. 153 The purpose of such protection lies in preventing the judicial system in general and its members in particular, from finding themselves subjected to possible undue limitations in the exercise of their functions, by bodies alien to the Judiciary.154 Thus, judicial independence requires guarantees including an appropriate appointment procedure, tenure, and a guarantee against external pressure. 155 The Court has further held that the State must guarantee the autonomous exercise of the judicial function in both its institutional aspect, that is in relation to the Judiciary as a system, and also in relation to its individual aspect, that is, as regards the person of the specific judge.156 148. The Court has established that in a democratic State, the jurisdiction of military criminal courts must be restrictive and exceptional, applied only to the protection of legal rights intrinsic to the military system that have been harmed by active-duty military personnel in the performance of their duties.157 Moreover, the Court has repeatedly affirmed that the military criminal courts have no competent jurisdiction to investigate or, if necessary, prosecute and punish the perpetrators of human rights violations; instead, the prosecution of such cases must always fall to the general justice system. 158 149. In cases involving the use of military courts to try and sanction perpetrators of human rights violations, the Court has found the military jurisdiction failing to meet Conventionbased requirements of independence and impartiality. 159 The Court has also addressed the organic structure and composition of military courts, holding that they lack independence and impartiality when “they are made up of active-duty military personnel who are hierarchically subordinate to higher-ranked officers through the chain of command, that their designation does not depend on their professional skills and qualifications to exercise judicial functions, that they do not have sufficient guarantees that they will not be removed, and that they have not received the legal education required to sit as judges or serve as prosecutors.” 160 150. Notwithstanding this, the Court is faced with the commission of offenses different from those seen in its earlier case law or procedural and substantive disputes and with a scenario of analysis different from those of earlier cases. During the time these events took place in Argentina, the military jurisdiction was defined by the Constitution and the Code of Military Justice and covered “crimes and misdemeanors of an essentially military character, to include all those offenses that, because they affect the existence of the military establishment, are 153 Cfr. Case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru, par. 73, and Case of the Constitutional Court (Camba Campos et al.) v. Ecuador, par. 188. 154 Cfr. Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Court of Administrative Disputes”) v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 5, 2008. Series C No. 182, par. 55, and Case of the Constitutional Court (Camba Campos et al.) v. Ecuador, par. 188. 155 Cfr. Case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru, par. 75, and Case of the Constitutional Court (Camba Campos et al.) v. Ecuador, par. 188. 156 Cfr. Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Court of Administrative Disputes”) v. Venezuela, par. 55, and Case of the Constitutional Court (Camba Campos et al.) v. Ecuador, par. 198 157 Cfr. Case of Durand and Ugarte v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of August 16, 2000. Series C No. 68, par. 117, and Case of Osorio Rivera and Family Members v. Peru. Preliminary objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 26, 2013. Series C No. 274, par. 189. 158 Cfr. Case of La Cantuta v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 29, 2006. Series C No. 162, par. 142, and Case of Osorio Rivera and Family Members v. Peru, par. 189. 159 Cfr. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 30, 1999. Series C No. 52, par. 132, and Case of Nadege Dorzema et al. v. Dominican Republic, par. 188. 160 Case of Palamara Iribarne v. Chile. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 135, par. 155.