another note, the Court established that it had been proven that Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel did not have access to an adequate and effective remedy that would have enabled them to challenge the intervention of the military courts in the proceedings to examine the alleged acts of torture committed against them and, thus, as was determined in the cases of Fernández Ortega and Rosendo Cantú, Mexico was ordered to adopt, also within a reasonable period of time, the appropriate legislative reforms to allow individuals affected by the actions of the military courts to have access to an effective remedy to challenge their jurisdiction. 20 37. In this regard, the Court reiterates that the ruling of the SCJN of July 14, 2011 (supra considering paragraphs 5 and 29) makes a positive contribution to the protection and promotion of human rights within the Mexican State, among others, by requiring that members of the Judiciary exercise, ex officio, control of conformity with the Convention in the terms set forth by the case law issued by the Inter-American Court on this issue. 21 Specifically, through this “Ruling of the Plenary,” it was determined that: “Article 57, paragraph II, of the Code of Military Justice, is incompatible with the provisions of […] Article 13 [of the Federal Constitution…] in light of Articles 2 and 8(1) of the American Convention […] because establishing which crimes are against the military discipline does not guarantee to civilians or their next of kin who are victims of human rights violations [that] they can be subject to the jurisdiction of an ordinary judge or court. Consequently, since the second paragraph of Article 1 of the Federal Constitution provides that the norms relating to human rights will be interpreted in the terms of the Constitution and in accordance with the relevant international treaties, always giving preference the greatest protect for the individual, it should be considered that, under no circumstance, can the military justice system operate in relation to situations that violate the human rights of civilians.” 22 38. Furthermore, the Court appreciates the efforts made by the State to amend Article 57 of the Code of Military Justice. However, notwithstanding the foregoing, the Court reiterates what it stated in the Order on monitoring compliance issued on May 19, 2011 in the case of Radilla Pachecho v. Mexico, in which it ordered the same measure of reparation, to the effect that the initiative presented to the Congress of the Union on October 19, 2010, “is insufficient because it does not comply fully with the standards indicated in the Judgment,” since it would allow the Military Public Prosecution Service to investigate crimes perpetrated against civilians by military personnel, and because “the said reform only establishes that the military jurisdiction will not be competent [to deal with] forced disappearance of persons, torture and rape committed by military personnel.” 23 Therefore, the Court urges the State to provide 20 Cf. Case of Fernández Ortega et al. V. México. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 30, 2010 Series C No. 215, para. 240; Case of Rosendo Cantú and otra V. México. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2010 Series C No. 216, para. 223, and Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores V. México. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 26, 2010. Series C No. 220, para. 235. 21 The Inter-American Court has established that “the Judiciary [must] exercise a ‘control of conformity with the Convention’ ex officio between the domestic norms and the American Convention, in the framework of the respective jurisdictions and the respective procedural regulations.” Case of Radilla Pacheco V. México. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 23, 2009. Series C No. 209, para. 339, and Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores V. México. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 26, 2010. Series C No. 220, para. 225. 22 Agreement of the Full court of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation of July 14, 2011, Case file Varios 912/2010. Published in the Official Gazette of the Federation on October 4, 2011. 23 Case of Radilla Pacheco V. México. Monitoring of Compliance with Judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of May 19, 2011, Considering clauses 21 and 22. 13