42 […] Likewise, [the] Court has established that, taking into account the nature of the crime and the juridical right damaged, military criminal jurisdiction is not the competent jurisdiction to investigate 191 and, in its case, prosecute and punish the authors of violations of human rights but that instead 192 the processing of those responsible always corresponds to the ordinary justice system. 188. Duty-related crimes, then, which are the crimes that may be aired in the military justice system, are “punishable act[s] [that] must constitute an excess or an abuse of power that takes place in 193 the context of an activity directly related to a legitimate function of the armed forces.” Moreover, “the nexus between the criminal act and the activity related to military service is broken when the offense is extremely grave, as in the case of crimes against humanity. In such circumstances, the case must be 194 removed to the civilian justice system.” 189. On this point, the TRC stated that, in its judgment, remanding to the military jurisdiction ‘denaturalizes the substantive competence of military tribunals which must be confined to the protection of military legal interests.” 190. In this sense, the Commission concludes that the arbitrary and extrajudicial executions and the shooting of survivors may not be considered duty-related crimes but rather serious human rights abuses and therefore the investigation into the facts in the instant case should have gone forward in the ordinary courts. 191. As the Inter-American Court has maintained, “[a]ll organs that exercise functions of a substantially jurisdictional nature have the obligation to adopt just decisions based on full respect for the 195 guarantee of due process established in Article 8 of the Convention.” Similarly, according to the principles relating to the investigation of arbitrary and extrajudicial executions States must carry out a “thorough, prompt and impartial investigation of all suspected cases of extra-legal, arbitrary and summary 196 executions” and “identify and bring to justice those responsible, while ensuring the right of every person 197 to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law.” 192. The Inter-American Court has also specified that: …continuation 105, and Inter-Am. Ct. H.R., Case of Tiu Tojín v. Guatemala, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 26, 2008. Series C No. 190, para. 118. 191 Inter-Am. Ct. H.R., Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico. Judgment on Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. November 23, 2009, para. 273; Inter-Am. Ct. H.R., Case of the Rochela Massacre v. Colombia, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C No. 163, para. 200, and Inter-Am. Ct. H.R., Case of Escué Zapata v. Colombia, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 165, para. 105. 192 Inter-Am. Ct. H.R., Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico. Judgment on Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. November 23, 2009, para. 273, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R., Case of Durand and Ugarte v. Peru, Merits. Judgment of August 16, 2000. Series C No. 68, para. 118; Inter-Am. Ct. H.R., Case of La Cantuta v. Peru, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 29, 2006. Series C No. 162, para. 142; and, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R., Case of the Rochela Massacre v. Colombia, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C No. 163, para. 200. 193 Constitutional Court of Colombia, decision C-358 of August 5, 1997. In that same sense, see IACHR. Third Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Colombia, para. 30. 194 Constitutional Court of Colombia, decision C-358 of August 5, 1997. In that same sense, see IACHR. Third Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Colombia, para. 30. 195 Inter-Am. Ct. H.R., Case of López Álvarez. Judgment of February 1, 2006. Series C No. 141. para. 148; Inter-Am. Ct. H.R., Case of Palamara Iribarne, Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 135 para. 164; Inter-Am. Ct. H.R., Case of Yatama. Judgment of June 23, 2005. Series C No. 127, para. 149; Inter-Am. Ct. H.R., Case of Ivcher Bronstein. Judgment of February 6, 2001. Series C No. 74, para. 104. 196 United Nations Economic and Social Council. Principles on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions. Resolution 1989/65 of May 24, 1989. 197 United Nations General Assembly. Resolution 59/197. Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions (A/RES/59/197), March 10, 2005.