officers through the chain of command; (ii) their designation does not depend on their professional skills and qualifications to exercise judicial functions; and (iii) they do not have sufficient guarantees that they will not be removed. This has led to the conclusion that said courts lack the necessary independence and impartiality to consider human rights violations.290 248. Taking the above criteria into account, both, the Commission and the Inter-American Court has referred to the incompatibility of the American Convention with the use of the military criminal justice system to judge possible human rights violations, indicating that the resulting problem for guaranteeing independence and impartiality is that it is the very armed forces are “charged with prosecuting their peers for executing civilians.”291 Thus, the Inter-American Court has held that special jurisdictions like the military one should only be used to judge active military personnel “for the commission of crimes or offenses that based on their own nature threaten the juridical rights of the military order itself.”292 249. In this case, the proceedings under military criminal jurisdiction were held pursuant to Article 13 of the Political Constitution of the United Mexican States and the then applicable Article 57 of the Code of Military Justice, which read: Article 13.- Crimes and offenses against military discipline shall come under the military jurisdiction. Article 57.- Crimes against military discipline: […] II. Those of a common or federal nature committed in any of the following circumstances: a).- They are committed by military personnel during active service or owing to acts related to that service; […] When, in cases under subsection II, military personnel and civilians are involved, the former shall be tried by military justice. 250. Specifically in the instant case the military jurisdiction was exercised pursuant to this provision of the Code of Military Justice,293 which extended that jurisdiction to crimes unrelated to military discipline or to legal acts that fall within the military realm.294 In this regard, the Commission notes that on January 13, 2010, the Seventh Agency of the Federal Public Ministry declined jurisdiction in favor of the Attorney General's Office for Military Justice as it considered that the records and the measures taken in connection with the preliminary inquiry, “point to the possible commission of the crime of abuse of authority in which it appears that personnel of the Secretariat of National Defense participated; therefore, pursuant to Article 57.II.a, competence lies with the Attorney General's Office for Military Justice .295 251. The investigation remained in the hands of military justice until December 29, 2011, or, in other words, for a period of one year and 10 months. In addition, the Commission points out that the reason the case was turned over to the ordinary courts was not related to the nature of the crime but rather to the fact that the military jurisdiction determined that there was no evidence of the participation of army members in the acts surrounding the disappearance. 290 Cfr. I/A Court H.R., Case of Palamara Iribarne v. Chile. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 135, paras. 155 and 156. 291 I/A Court H.R., Case of Las Palmeras v. Colombia. Merits. Judgment of December 6, 2001. Series C No. 90, para. 53. 292 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. 272. 293 Annex I. Case file. Volume I. Authorization to consult on lack of competence for jurisdictional reasons of the PGR, February 10, 2010, pages 19-20 of the pdf. (Annex to the petitioners’ observations on the merits received on November 3, 2014); Annex I. Case file. Volume V. Order to to file for preliminary inquiry PGJM/AMPME/CDJUAREZ/196-II-IV/2010, page 3 of the pdf. (Annex to the petitioners’ observations on the merits received on November 3, 2014). 294 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. 274, para. 312. 295 Annex I. Case file. Volume I. Agreement in which the Seventh Agency of the Federal Public Ministy declines jurisdiction for preliminary inquiry AP/PGR/CHIH/JUAREZ/27/2010-VII of January 13, 2009, page 19 of the pdf. (Annex to the petitioners’ observations on the merits received on November 3, 2014).