239. The Court will now rule on Colombia’s argument that, according to the sources available at the time of the facts of this case, the military criminal jurisdiction had the status of a competent court to hear “the violation to the personal integrity of Mr. Vélez.” 240. On this point, the Court reiterates its consistent case law229 regarding the lack of competence of the military criminal jurisdiction to prosecute human rights violations and the restrictive and exceptional scope that this should have in the States that still retain this jurisdiction. This Court has established that, owing to the legal right harmed, the said jurisdiction is not the competent system of justice to investigate and, as appropriate, prosecute and punish the authors of human rights violations, and that, only soldiers on active duty who have committed crimes or misdemeanors that, owing to their nature, harm juridical rights of a military nature, can be tried by the military justice system. 230 In addition, the Court notes that, prior to the facts of this case and at the time of the investigation, other international organs for the protection of human rights, such as the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, and the Human Rights Committee of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, had already indicated to Colombia that human rights violations should not be heard by the military criminal justice system. 231 229 Cf. Case of Durand and Ugarte v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of August 16, 2000. Series C No. 68, 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 of Las Palmeras v. Colombia. Merits. Judgment of December 6, 2001. Series C No. 90, paras. 51, 52 and 53; Case of the 19 Tradesmen v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 5, 2004. Series C No. 109, paras. 165, 166, 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. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134, 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. Merits, reparations and costs, paras. 189 and 193; Case of Montero Aranguren et al. (Retén de Catia) v. Venezuela. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 5, 2006. Series C No. 150, paras. 53, 54 and 108; Case of La Cantuta v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 29, 2006. Series C No. 162, para. 142; Case of the La Rochela Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs, para. 200; Case of Escué Zapata v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs, para. 105; Case of Zambrano Vélez et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, reparations and costs, para. 66; Case of Tiu Tojín v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs, 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. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 23, 2009. Series C No. 209, paras. 272 and 273; Case of Fernández Ortega et al. v. Mexico. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs, para. 176; Case of Rosendo Cantú et al. v. Mexico. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs, para. 160, and Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs, paras. 197 to 199. 230 Furthermore, on numerous occasions, the Court has indicated that “[w]hen the military justice system assumes competence on a matter that should be heard by the ordinary justice system, the right to a natural judge is impaired and, a fortiori, due process,” which, in turn, is closely tied to the right of access to justice itself; cf. inter alia, Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 30, 1999. Series C No. 52, para. 128, and Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs, para. 197. 231 In 1993, in its Second Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Colombia, the Inter-American Commission stated that it was necessary “to regulate […] very clearly what constitutes a criminal act related to active duty in order to avoid the possibility of human rights violations being classified as acts inherent in active duty.” Cf. Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Second Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Colombia. OEA/Ser.L/V/II.84 Doc. 39 rev. 14 October 1993 (document available on the webpage of the InterAmerican Commission at: http://www.cidh.oas.org/countryrep/Colombia93sp/indice.htm, last consulted on September 3, 2012). For its part, in May 1997, the United Nations Human Right Committee of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights issued its concluding observations on the report of Colombia in which it “urge[d Colombia]that all necessary steps be taken to ensure that members of the armed forces and the police accused of human rights abuses are tried by independent civilian courts and suspended from active duty during the period of investigation.” In this regard, the said Committee recommended “that the jurisdiction of the military courts with respect to human rights violations be transferred to civilian courts.” Cf. CCPR/C/79/Add.76 of 5 May 1997 (file of annexes to the pleadings and motions brief, tome I, annex 1). 70