16 That connection annuls the general principles that establish competence in criminal matters and it could be subjective or relating to the perpetrators of the crime, or objective or relating to punishable acts. In either case, there cannot be separate proceedings; that would undermine the unity of the case and there could be a risk that contradictory judgments would be issued; therefore the proceedings must be combined to avoid that risk. […] There must then be only one investigation that covers perpetrators and participants since, presumably, all have participated in some way in the commission of the crime and their individual responsibility will be determined during the trial. The unity of the case does not allow then to initiate two separate proceedings for the same crimes or that indictments, which are essential, be issued by different judges, because it would alter the nature of the penal action and would work against the principles of unity, economy and procedural speed41. 74. This Tribunal deems necessary to draw up some considerations in relation to the privilege, the connection and the competent tribunal which are relevant for the suit at law. The privilege has been established to protect the integrity of the State's role that depends on the people who enjoy such protection and to avoid, in this way, altering the normal conduct of the public service. It does not constitute a personal right of the public servants. It serves the public interest. On this assumption, the privilege seeks a purpose compatible with the Convention. Moreover, the connection seeks a purpose, conventionally acceptable, by means of which a same court will hear different cases related to each other. Preventing, in this way, contradictory judgments and guaranteeing unity of decisions and procedural economy. 75. Article 8(1) of the Convention enshrines the right to a hearing by “a competent […] tribunal, previously established by law", provision that is related to the concept of a competent court, one of the guarantees of the due process of law, which has been even accepted by certain sectors of the doctrine, as a condition of such Article. This implies that people have the right to be tried, in general, by a competent tribunal, in accordance with legally established procedures. 76. The existence and jurisdiction of the competent tribunal derives from the law, which has been defined by the Court as the “general legal norm tied to the general welfare, passed by democratically elected legislative bodies established by the Constitution, and formulated according to the procedures set forth by the constitutions of the States Parties for that purpose.”42 Consequently, in a Rule of Law, only the Legislative branch is able to regulate, by means of laws, the jurisdiction of the courts. 77. However, the privilege does not necessarily come into conflict with the right to a competent tribunal, if such privilege is expressly established and defined by the Legislative branch and serves a legitimate purpose, as has been previously indicated. In this way, not only the right in question is respected but also the jurisdiction court turns into the competent tribunal of the individual who enjoys a privilege. If, however, the law does not provide for privileges but the Executive branch or the Judiciary itself establishes such privileges, distracting in this way the individual from the court that the law embodies as its competent tribunal, the right to be tried by a competent court would be violated. Likewise, if the connection is expressly regulated by law, the competent tribunal of an individual shall be the court that is competent to hear cases of connectivity as established by law. If the connection is not regulated 41 Judgment of the SCJ of June 8, 1993 (record of appendices to the application, volume I, appendix 6, pages 251 and 252). 42 Cf. The Word “Laws” in Article 30 of the American Convention on Human Rights. Advisory Opinion OC-6/86 of May 9, 1986, Series A Nº 6.