For the purposes of this and all other legal effects the National Civil Police is declared to comprise a single institutional and legal unit. 130. The State supplied the aforesaid Code, which also specifies the extent of the authority of this jurisdiction. As the Code stipulates, that authority encompasses "any imputable act or omission committed by an individual who belongs to the National Civil Police, whether on active duty or in a transitory situation punished by imprisonment or confinement in this Code.” In particular, the Commission notes that Title IV of the Code contains a chapter entitled "On Crimes against Life,” which includes definitions and applicable penalties for the criminal offenses of "homicide, assault, and bodily harm [homicidio, golpes y lesiones].”126 131. Finally, the State explained that according to the Disciplinary Rules, “because of the status of the National Police as an institution organized under a hierarchical disciplinary system, it requires strict and constant discipline from its members for the performance of its specific functions, expressed as faithful performance of duty as well as respect consisting of strict observance of the law ... and obedience of the orders of a higher authority.” b. Proceedings in the police courts 132. The record available to the Commission shows that the entire investigation and criminal proceeding against the agents identified as possible culprits in the events were conducted in the police jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of the police courts was determined by the fact that Mr. Valencia was a policeman who was on “duty on the first shift.” Moreover, the trial of the accused agents who were located in the police seniority listing was also carried out in that jurisdiction. In other words, the application of police jurisdiction derived both from those suing and those being sued. 133. Having examined the record of the investigation, the Commission notes that the main procedures in the inquiry were carried out by members of the police. Thus: (i) The person who carried out the ballistic tests held the rank of "police major"; (ii) one of the doctors who offered an opinion on the autopsy was a "second lieutenant"; and (iii) the doctors who determined the existence of “sooting” and that the shot fired was a contact shot were a “lieutenant" and a "second lieutenant" in the police. Furthermore, the judge of the Second National Police District Court was a "police captain," while commanders and colonels took part in the National Police District Court. Finally, the prosecutor who abstained from pressing charges was a "police justice lieutenant.” c. International responsibility of the State engaged by the use of the police jurisdiction 134. The Commission recalls that special jurisdictions, such as the military criminal justice system, should have a restricted and exceptional scope and be designed to protect special juridical interests associated with the entity itself. Thus, the Inter-American Court has had the opportunity to analyze the structure and composition of special tribunals, such as military courts, in the light of the United Nations Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary. A number of relevant factors are: (i) that they are made up of active-duty officers who are hierarchically subordinate to higher-ranked officers through the chain of command; (ii) that their designation does not depend on their professional skills and qualifications to exercise judicial functions; and (iii) that they do not have sufficient guarantees that they will not be removed. This has led to the conclusion that such tribunals lack the necessary independence and impartiality to take cognizance of human rights violations.127 135. Taking the above criteria into account, the Inter-American Court has referred to the incompatibility with the American Convention of the use of military criminal tribunals in cases involving human rights violations, noting that the fact that the very same military forces are those “charged with Appendix 67. National Civil Police Criminal Code, 1960. Supplied by the State with its communication of August 16, 2013. Cfr. I/A Court H.R., Case of Palamara Iribarne v. Chile. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 22, 2005, Series C, No. 135. Pars. 155 and 156. 126 127