83 such procedural reform, which implied a constitutional amendment. 123. Article 8(1) of the Convention sets forth that: Every person has the right to a hearing, with due guarantees and within a reasonable time, by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal, previously established by law, in the substantiation of any accusation of a criminal nature made against him or for the determination of his rights and obligations of a civil, labor, fiscal, or any other nature. a) Right to a hearing by a competent judge or court 124. The Court has established that every person has the right to be tried by a competent, independent, and impartial judge or court. In a democratic constitutional State the military criminal jurisdiction should have a restricted and exceptional scope and should be aimed at the protection of special legal interests related to the duties the law assigns to the military. Therefore, only military members should be tried for the commission of criminal offenses or breaches which, due to their own nature, constitute an attack on military legal interests.191 125. The right to be tried by ordinary courts in accordance with the procedures set forth by law is an essential tenet of due process.192 Therefore, the right to be tried by a competent judge is not enforced for the mere fact that it is established by law which court is to hear a particular case and jurisdiction thereof is recognized. 126. In this regard, military criminal regulations must clearly set forth without any ambiguities whatsoever, which persons are deemed to be military members -the only perpetrators of military criminal offenses-, which criminal offenses fall within the specific military scope, and the illegal nature of criminal offenses by means of a description of the injury to or endangerment of military legal interests which have been seriously attacked, which may justify the exercise of punitive military power, as well as establish the appropriate sanction. In applying military criminal regulations and charging a military member with the commission of a criminal offense, the authorities who exercise the military criminal jurisdiction must also abide by the nullum crimen nulla poena sine lege praevia principle and, among other requirements, prove the existence of all the elements which must be present according to the description of such military criminal offense, as well as the existence or non-existence of criminal excuses for such criminal acts. 127. In the instant case, the military status of Mr. Palamara-Iribarne is a fact at issue between the parties. The State has alleged before the Court that the application filed by Mr. Palamara for retirement from the Navy as an active-duty officer was admitted after the facts which gave rise to the criminal proceedings and, 191 Cf. 78; Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre” , supra note 1, para. 202; Case of Lori Berenson-Mejía. Judgment of November 25, 2004. Series C No. 119, para. 142; and Case of 19 Tradesmen. Judgment of July 5, 2004. Series C No. 109, para. 165. 192 Cf. Case of Lori Berenson, supra note 191, para. 143, and Case of Castillo-Petruzzi et al. Judgment of May 30, 1999. Series C No. 52, para. 129.