73 possibly caused the destruction of evidence prior to the removal of corpses which finally took place on July 18, July 1991 (supra para. 101). 243. Fourth, the Court has already established that, as concluded by the National Criminal Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of Lima (supra para. 173), the military courts “tried to cover up the real ages of the victims [who were minors, ordering], the registration of the death certificates with ages ranging from 19 to 42 years old – ages that would indicate that the deaths were the result of an armed confrontation with subversive elements.” 283 244. Fifth, regarding the role of the military jurisdiction in this case, in a ruling on October 28, 1991, the judge of the Sixth Permanent Military Tribunal of Ayacucho ordered the transfer of the case to the military courts, and in a judgment of October 16, 1992, the Permanent Court Martial of the Second Army Judicial District convicted three soldiers, a decision confirmed by the Review Chamber of Supreme Council of Military Justice on February 10, 1993. Likewise, following requests by CEAPAZ to the Prosecutor General and by Zósimo Hilario Quispe to the Second Army Judicial District that the case be tried in the ordinary courts, as well as the jurisdictional dispute between the judge of the Sixth Permanent Military Tribunal of Ayacucho with the examining magistrate of the ordinary Criminal Court of Huancavelica, on June 17, 1993, the Peruvian Supreme Court decided that the case should be investigated and tried in the ordinary courts. Nevertheless, following the application of Amnesty Laws No. 26.479 and No. 26.492 and despite this Court’s judgment in the Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru that declared said laws incompatible with the American Convention, on June 28, 2002, the Plenary of the Supreme Council of Military Justice ordered the case to be reopened in the military jurisdiction at the execution of judgment stage (supra paras. 106 to 115 and 121 to 123). The Court does not have information regarding subsequent procedures in the military jurisdiction. 245. On this matter, the Court recalls its extensive and consistent case law on the competence of the military jurisdiction to investigate acts that constitute human rights violations and, 284 for the purposes of this case, finds it sufficient to reiterate that, in a democratic State governed by the rule of law, the military criminal jurisdiction must have a restricted and exceptional scope and its aim must be to protect special legal interests related to the intrinsic functions of the military forces. Therefore, as the Court has indicated previously, the military jurisdiction should only try Cirilo Osnayo Tunque of November 5, 2010, and October 11, 2011, respectively stated that the soldiers ordered them to appear before the Commando Political Military so that “we declare that nothing has happened” (evidence file, folios 1675 and 4404). 283 Cf. Judgment of the National Criminal Chamber of February 9, 2012 (evidence file, folio 4541). 284 Cf. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 30, 1999. Series C No. 52, paras. 128 to 130 and 132; Case Cesti Hurtado v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of September 29, 1999. Series C No. 56, para. 151; Case Durand and Ugarte v. Peru. Merits, supra, paras. 116, 117, 125 and 126; Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of August 18, 2000. Series C No. 69, paras. 112 to 114; Case the Palmeras v. Colombia. Merits, supra, paras. 51, 52 and 53; Case of 19 Merchants v. Colombia, supra, paras. 165 to 167, 173 and 174; Case of Lori Berenson Mejía v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2004. Series C No. 119, paras. 141 to 145; Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre” v. Colombia, supra, para. 202; Case of Palamara Iribarne v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 135, paras. 139 and 143; Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia, supra, paras. 189 and 193; Case of Montero Aranguren et al. (Detention Center of Catia) v. Venezuela, supra, paras. 53, 54 and 108; Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. v. Chile. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 154, paras. 131 and 134; Case of La Cantuta v. Peru, supra, paras. 142 and 145; Case of La Rochela Massacre v. Colombia, supra, paras. 200 and 204; Case Escué Zapata v. Colombia, supra, paras. 105; Case Zambrano Vélez et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 166, para. 66; Case of Tiu Tojín v. Guatemala, supra, paras. 118 to 120; Case of Usón Ramírez v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2009. Series C No. 207, paras. 108 to 110; Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico, supra, paras. 272 to 275 and 283; Case of Fernández Ortega et al. v. Mexico. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 30, 2010. Series C No. 215, para. 176; Case of Rosendo Cantú et al. v. Mexico. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2010. Series C No. 216, paras. 160 and 163; Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico, supra, paras. 197 to 201; Case of Vélez Restrepo and Family v. Colombia. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 3, 2012. Series C No. 248, paras. 240, 241, 243 and 244; Case of the Santo Domingo Massacre v. Colombia, supra, para. 158; Case of Osorio Rivera and Family Members v. Peru, supra, paras. 187 to 191, and Case of Rodríguez Vera et al. (Disappeared of the Palace of Justice) v. Colombia, supra, para. 442.