43 […] “[w]hen the military jurisdiction assumes competence over a matter that should be heard by the ordinary jurisdiction, it is violating the right to a competent tribunal and, a fortiori, to due process,” 198 which is, at the same time, intimately related to the right to a fair trial. Those courts must be 199 competent, independent and impartial. 193. Contrary to those principles and to the consistent jurisprudence of the Inter-American System, in the instant case, which involves the violation of human rights, the deaths of Víctor Salomón Peceros Pedraza and Herma Luz Meléndez were taken up by a tribunal that was neither competent, nor, as we shall discuss later, impartial or independent. 194. In this sense, the Commission observes that military courts cannot be an independent and impartial organ to investigate and try human rights violations since the Armed Forces have a “deepseated esprit de corps” which is sometimes misinterpreted as requiring them to cover up crimes 200 committed by their fellow soldiers. Similarly, the IACHR considers that impartiality is compromised when military authorities prosecute actions whose active subject is another member of the Army, since investigations into the conduct of members of the security forces carried out by other members of those 201 same forces generally serve to conceal the truth rather than to reveal it. 195. The IACHR recalls that a tribunal’s impartiality is based on its members not having a direct interest, a pre-established position or a preference for one of the parties, nor any involvement in the controversy. In the case at hand, the analysis of the process carried out in the military jurisdiction reveals that the latter decided to dismiss and close the case on the following grounds: […]the subversive group […] organized and equipped as a military force […] in a struggle with the characteristics of a military battle, in which there were dead and wounded on both sides. It is therefore necessary to evaluate the necessary conditions for legitimate defense and the circumstances surrounding the battle, the dangerousness of the subversive agents who were provisioned with war weapons and supplies […] and who at all times demonstrated the belligerence inherent to terrorist groups, and a situation in which the lives of the hostages were in grave danger …having died (one hostage, Carlos Giusti Acuña) and two of the commandos involved, with several hostages and commandos seriously wounded. This is indicative of the intensity of the battle […] and therefore in conducting an objective assessment it was necessary to evaluate the necessary conditions to preserve the physical integrity and lives of the hostages […] […]the version of extrajudicial executions […] is based solely on the sworn testimony provided by …Hidetaka Ogura […] and these claims […] have not been confirmed or upheld by a court of jurisdiction […] […] the commandos acted in the legitimate defense of human life and in strict compliance with their constitutionally-protected official duties […] 198 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 Castillo Petruzzi et al v. Peru, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 30, 1999. Series C No. 52, para. 128; Inter-Am. Ct. H.R., Case of Palamara Iribarne v. Chile. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 135, para. 143, 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. 199 Inter-Am. Ct. H.R., Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 6, 2001. Series C No. 74, para. 112; Inter-Am. Ct. H.R., Case of the 19 Merchants v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 5, 2004. Series C No. 109, para. 167; 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. 101; 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. 117, 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; y, 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. 200 IACHR. Third Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Colombia, paras. 26-29. 201 IACHR. Third Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Colombia, para. 19.