33 170 order to carry out the investigation.” On this point, the constant jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court holds that “the obligation to investigate a death means that the effort to determine the truth with all 171 diligence must be evident as of the very first procedures” and must take into account the United Nations Manual on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-Legal, Arbitrary and Summary 172 Executions. 162. The Commission notes that according to the established facts, before the criminal proceedings began before the regular courts, a case was brought in connection with the same incident before the military courts on August 31, 1994, and that those proceedings concluded on June 20, 1995, with the resolution of the Supreme Military Justice Council that awarded the accused soldier the benefits of Law No. 26479 (the Amnesty Law), finding that his actions on August 9, 1994, took place as a part of the fight against terrorism. Those proceedings lasted a total of almost ten months. 163. The Inter-American Court has already ruled on the unsuitability of military criminal courts as venues for examining, prosecuting, and punishing cases of human rights violations, and it has ruled that under the democratic rule of law, that jurisdiction must have a 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, 173 due to their nature, harm the juridical interests of the military system, which was not the case in the incident at hand, which involved the deaths of two civilians and the wounding of a third by a shot fired without any justification whatsoever. 164. As the Inter-American Commission has said, “when the State permits investigations to be conducted by the entities with possible involvement, independence and impartiality are clearly compromised,” as a result of which it is ���impossible to conduct the investigation, obtain the information, and provide the remedy that is allegedly available,” and what occurs is de facto impunity, which “has a 174 corrosive effect on the rule of law and violates the principles of the American Convention.” 165. The Commission notes that although the investigation of the facts began before the regular justice system on August 9, 1994, and the committal proceedings began on November 25, 1994, during 1994 and 1995 the Prosecutor assigned to the case never asked the Army to surrender the FAL rifles belonging to the 15 members of the military patrol and, most particularly, the one assigned to Sergeant Second-Class Evangelista Pinedo at the time of the incident, in order to safeguard the evidence; neither did he request other relevant tests to cast light on the incident, such as conducting paraffin tests on all the members of the patrol, reconstructing the scene of the crime, or carrying out forensic mapping. 170 I/A Court H. R., Case of Zambrano Vélez et al. v. Ecuador, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of July 4, 2007, Series C No. 166, para. 122. 171 I/A Court H. R., Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico, Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of November 16, 2009, Series C No. 205, para. 300; Case of Servellón García et al. v. Honduras, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of September 21, 2006, Series C No. 152, para. 120; Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of November 25, 2006, Series C No. 160, para. 383; and Case of Zambrano Vélez et al. v. Ecuador, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of July 4, 2007, Series C No. 166, para. 121. Also: United Nations Manual on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-Legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions, E/ST/CSDHA/.12 (1991). 172 I/A Court H. R., Case of Servellón García et al. v. Honduras, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of September 21, 2006, Series C No. 152, para. 120; I/A Court H. R., Case of Montero Aranguren et al. (Detention Center of Catia) v. Venezuela, Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of July 5, 2006, Series C No. 150, para. 140; I/A Court H. R., Case of Ximenes Lopes v. Brazil, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of July 4, 2006, Series C No. 149, para. 179; I/A Court H. R., Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia, Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of July 1, 2006, Series C No. 148, para. 298; and United Nations Manual on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-Legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions, E/ST/CSDHA/.12 (1991). 173 I/A Court H. R., Case of the Massacre of Pueblo Bello v. Colombia, Judgment of January 31, 2006, Series C No. 140, para. 189; I/A Court H. R., Case of Palamara Iribarne v. Chile, Judgment of November 25, 2005, Series C No. 137, para. 124; I/A Court H. R., Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre” v. Colombia, Judgment of September 15, 2005, Series C No. 134, para. 202; and I/A Court H. R., Case of Lori Berenson Mejía v. Peru, Judgment of November 25, 2004, Series C No. 119, para. 142. 174 IACHR, Report No. 53/01, Case 11.565, Ana, Beatriz, and Celia González Pérez (Mexico), April 4, 2001.