prosecuting their peers for executing civilians” is problematic for the guarantee of independence and impartiality.128 Accordingly, the Inter-American court has found as a special jurisdiction, military courts “should only try military personnel for committing crimes or misdemeanors that, due to their nature, harm the juridical interests of the military system.”129 136. The Commission underscores that when the investigation finds that the death of a person was either a suicide or an arbitrary deprivation of life, the European Court has emphasized that the minimum requirement is that the persons responsible for the investigation must be independent from those implicated in the events. According to said court, this means the need to ensure the hierarchical, institutional, and practical independence of the authority that takes cognizance of the events. 130 137. Analogously, in the present case, the Commission notes that the participation of members of the police in judicial functions means that that jurisdiction lacked the necessary safeguards of independence and impartiality to take up cases that could involve human rights violations. In that sense, the Commission believes that, notwithstanding the fact that the alleged victim and the accused were policemen, the police criminal justice system should have had a limited scope and should not have been used in the investigation and trial of possible criminal offenses that could constitute violations of human rights. 138. In particular, the Commission notes that although the Ecuadorian Constitution then in force delegated the possibility of prosecuting members of the police “for the reasons and in the manner provided by law,” it was the National Civil Police Criminal Code that included within the authority of the police justice system crimes "against life," including "homicide." The Ecuadorian regulatory framework, therefore, established the obligation to prosecute acts of this nature—which may constitute human rights violations, causing the police courts to overreach their purview beyond crimes or misdemeanors committed in the course of duty that exclusively harm the juridical interests of the police system. 139. Based on the foregoing, the Commission concludes that the State of Ecuador failed to offer Mr. Valencia Hinojosa’s next of kin a criminal investigation and proceeding by independent and impartial judges, in violation of Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, taken in conjunction with Articles 1 and 2 of that instrument. 2. Due diligence in the investigation a. General considerations 140. The Inter-American Court has held that, in keeping with the duty to investigate a person's death with due diligence, states have the obligation to act with all diligence from the very first stages of a proceeding.131 Particularly when an investigation is carried out in circumstance in which one of the hypotheses for a person's death is suicide, the European Court of Human Rights has found that: The investigation must satisfy certain minimum standard as to effectiveness. Thereby, the competent authorities must act with exemplary diligence and promptness, and must of their own motion initiate investigations which would be capable of, firstly, ascertaining the circumstances in which the incident took place and any shortcomings in the operation of the regulatory system and, secondly, identifying the State officials or authorities involved. 132 128 I/A Court H.R. Las Palmeras v. Colombia. Merits. Judgment of December 6, 2001. Series C No. 90, par. 53. I/A Court H.R. Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 23, 2009. Series C No. 209, par. 272. 129 130See ECHR, Sergey Shevchenko v. Ukraine, no. 32478/02, § 64. 131I/A Court H.R., Case of Zambrano-Vélez et al. C. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 166, par. 121. 132See ECHR, Sergey Shevchenko v. Ukraine, no. 32478/02, § 65.