35 investigate and, in its case, prosecute and punish the authors of violations of human rights but that instead the processing of those responsible always corresponds to the ordinary justice system." 137 In this sense, the position of the State of Colombia, by stating that only grave violations of human rights must be excluded from the scope of the criminal military courts, is manifestly contrary to the doctrine of the Inter-American system. The Court has stated in clear terms that faced with situations that breach the human rights of civilians, under no circumstance must the military courts operate, 138 given that when the military courts assume jurisdiction over acts that constitute violations of human rights against civilians, they exercise jurisdiction not only with regard to the accused but also with regard to the civilian victim. 139 In addition, the victim must have the right to participate in the criminal proceedings not only for purposes of the corresponding reparation of the damage but also to exercise their rights to the truth and to justice. 140 156. The Commission thus considers that when the investigation into the attack committed against Mr. Vélez on August 29 1996, was assumed by the military criminal jurisdiction, Mr. Vélez's right to his natural judge was affected, and a fortiori, to due process which, in its turn, is inextricably linked to the right of access to justice. 141 The decision to send the investigation to an inadequate jurisdiction violated in itself, Articles 8.1 and 25 of the American Convention to the prejudice of Mr. Vélez. The Commission considers it relevant to emphasize, at any rate, that the process undertaken in the military court was archived without linking anyone to the investigation, notwithstanding the limited number of possible perpetrators (the members of the 12th Brigade who participated in the operation), the existence of eyewitnesses, and the fact that the 12th Brigade commander had already disciplined two soldiers of the Army in relation to the facts of August 29, 1996. 142 In addition, in conformity with the rules of the military criminal courts, Mr. Vélez was not permitted to receive information on the course of the investigation, 143 nor to appeal the archiving decision. 144 In brief, the Commission considers that sending the case to the military courts not only formally violated Mr. Vélez's right to access to justice, but also constitutes the principal reason for the impunity existing in relation to the attack that occurred on August 29, 1996. 157. In relation to the threats and acts of harassment against Mr. Vélez and his family, and the attempted kidnapping on October 6, 1997, the same considerations supra apply with respect to the disciplinary investigations, in the sense that these may supplement but must not replace the criminal jurisdiction. As concerns the criminal investigation into these acts, the Commission observes that the State of Colombia has only reported that the 13th Prosecutor of the Section of Belén de los Andaquíes (Caquetá) is currently undertaking the corresponding investigation, which was at the preliminary investigation stage until at least June 2009. 145 The last 137 Cf. I/A Court H.R., Case of Radilla Pacheco v Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 23, 2009. Series C No. 209, para.273; I/A Court H.R., Case of Durand and Ugarte v Peru. Merits. Judgment of August 16, 2000. Series C No. 68, para.118. 138 Cf. I/A Court H.R., Case of Radilla Pacheco v Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 23, 2009. Series C No. 209, para. 274. 139 Cf. I/A Court H.R., Case of Radilla Pacheco v Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 23, 2009. Series C No. 209, para. 275. 140 Cf. I/A Court H.R., Case of Radilla Pacheco v Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 23, 2009. Series C No. 209, para. 275. 141 Cf. I/A Court H.R., Case of Radilla Pacheco v Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 23, 2009. Series C No. 209, para. 273. 142 State’s brief received on August 4, 2009, p. 18. 143 Initial Petition received on July 29, 2005, Annex 23. 144 State’s brief received on August 4, 2009, pp. 42-43. 145 State’s brief received on August 4, 2009, pp. 47-49.