84 a) Criminal proceeding in the military jurisdiction 139. Article 173 of the 1993 Constitution of Peru established that: In cases of crimes committed in the course of duty, members of the Armed Forces and the National Police are subject to the respective jurisdiction and to the Code of Military Justice. The provisions of the latter are not applicable to civilians, except in the case of crimes of treason and terrorism determined by law. The cassation referred to in Article 141 is only applicable when the death penalty has been imposed. Those who violate the norms of obligatory military service are also subject to the Code of Military Justice. 140. When examining the crime of treason, this Court noted that Decree Law No. 25,744 of September 21, 1992, referring to trials for this crime, granted DINCOTE competence to investigate, and determined that the trial would be held before military courts, even if the crime had been committed by civilians, under a very summary proceeding “in the theater of operations,” as established in the Code of Military Justice.238 141. It should be indicated, as in other cases, that the military jurisdiction is established to keep order and discipline among the armed forces. Accordingly, its application is reserved to soldiers who have committed a crime or fault in the exercise of their functions and under certain circumstances.239 Article 282 of the 1979 Peruvian Constitution regulated the military jurisdiction in this way; but this situation was modified by Article 173 of the 1993 Constitution (supra para. 139). The transfer of competences from the ordinary courts to the military courts and the subsequent trying of civilians for the crime of treason in the latter courts, as in the instant case, excludes a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal, previously established by law from hearing these cases. The Court has said that “[w]hen the military courts assume jurisdiction over a matter that should be heard by the civil courts, the right to a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal, previously established by law is violated as is, a fortiori, due process”; this, in turn, is intimately linked to the right to access to justice itself.240 142. This Court has established that: Under the democratic rule of law, the military criminal jurisdiction should have a very restricted and exceptional scope and be designed to protect special juridical interests associated with the functions assigned by law to the military forces. Hence, it should only try military personnel for committing crimes or misdemeanors that, due to their nature, harm the juridical interests of the military system.241 238 Cf. Case of Cantoral Benavides, supra note 25, para. 111; and Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al., supra note 25, para. 127. 239 Cf. Case of the 19 Tradesmen. Judgment of July 5, 2004. Series C No. 109, paras. 165 and 166; Case of Las Palmeras. Judgment of December 6, 2001. Series C No. 90, para. 52; and Case of Cantoral Benavides, supra note 25, para. 112. 240 Cf. Case of Las Palmeras, supra note 160, para. 52; Case of Cantoral Benavides, supra note 160, para. 112; and Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al.. Judgment of May 30, 1999. Series C No. 52, para. 128. 241 Cf. Case of the 19 Tradesmen, supra note 239, para. 165; Case of Las Palmeras, supra note 239, para. 51; and Case of Cantoral Benavides, supra note 25, para. 113.