v. Peru, in which it stated that the military criminal jurisdiction only applied to “soldiers for the perpetration of offenses or misdemeanors that, owing to their nature, violate legal rights intrinsic to the military system,” 308 it has been the Court’s consistent case law that the military jurisdiction is not the competent jurisdiction to investigate and, when appropriate, prosecute and punish the perpetrators of alleged human rights violations; but rather the prosecution of those responsible corresponds always to the ordinary system of justice. 309 The factual situation of the Durand and Ugarte case referred to the subduing of a prison riot in 1986, during which soldiers “used disproportionate force that far exceeded their task and that resulted in the death of a large number of prisoners.” 310 Therefore, this consideration is also applicable in the instant case in which the events occurred in 1991. In addition, the Court reiterates that, regardless of the year in which the violations occurred, the guarantee of an ordinary judge must be analyzed pursuant to the object and purpose of the American Convention, which provides effective protection to the individual. 311 190. The allegations concerning a disappearance relate to acts that are closely related to criminal acts and definitions that bear no relationship to the military discipline or mission. To the contrary, the alleged acts committed by military personnel against Jeremías Osorio Rivera violated rights protected by domestic criminal law and the American Convention, such as the victim’s dignity, and his personal liberty and integrity. Consequently, the Court reiterates that the criteria that human rights violations should be investigated and prosecuted under the ordinary jurisdiction does not arise from the gravity of the violations, but rather from their very nature and from the right protected. 312 It is evident that this conduct is clearly contrary to the obligations to respect and to protect human rights and, therefore, it is excluded from the competence of the military jurisdiction. Accordingly, the intervention of the military system of justice to investigate the enforced disappearance of Jeremías Osorio Rivera between July 22, 1992, and October 1996, contravened the parameters of exceptionality and restriction that characterize it, and signified the application of a jurisdiction that operated without taking into account the nature of the acts involved. 313 191. Based on the above, the Court concludes that the State violated the guarantee of an ordinary judge in relation to the investigation of the enforced disappearance of Jeremías Osorio Rivera by the military jurisdiction. iii. Second criminal investigation in the ordinary jurisdiction 192. The last valid jurisdictional action of the first proceeding was in July 1992, without reaching a conclusive decision. Since proceedings in the military jurisdiction are contrary to the American Convention and the first action in the ordinary jurisdiction in the second proceeding held based on the complaint filed by Porfirio Osorio Rivera took place in 2004, the Court verifies a lack of jurisdictional actions for more than 12 years. This is contrary to inter-American case law which indicates that a prolonged delay may, in itself, become a violation of judicial guarantees. 314 308 Case of Durand and Ugarte v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of August 16, 2000. Series C No. 68, para. 118. 309 Cf. Case of Durand and Ugarte v. Peru. Merits, supra, paras. 117, 118, 125 and 126, and Case of the Santo Domingo Massacre v. Colombia, supra, para. 158. 310 Case of Durand and Ugarte v. Peru. Merits, supra, para. 118. 311 Cf. Case of Vélez Restrepo and family members v. Colombia, supra, para. 244. 312 Cf. Case of Vélez Restrepo and family members v. Colombia, supra, para. 244. 313 Cf. Case of Fernández Ortega et al. v. Mexico. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 30, 2010. Series C No. 215, para. 177, and Case of Nadege Dorzema et al. v. Dominican Republic, supra, para. 197. 314 Cf. Case of Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. v. Trinidad and Tobago. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 21, 2002. Series C No. 94, para. 145, and Case of Torres Millacura v. Argentina, supra, para. 116. 70