limits of their functions thus also causing a high [...] death toll” of inmates 454 This same consideration is also applicable to the instant case that took place in 1997. The Court repeats that, regardless of the year in which the acts that violated human rights occurred, the guarantee to be heard by an ordinary judge must be analyzed according to the object and purpose of the American Convention, which is the effective protection of the individual. 455 403. Allegations were made of extrajudicial executions, and such acts derive from facts and codified crimes that are never associated with discipline or military justice. Instead, the alleged acts against Herma Luz Meléndez Cueva and Víctor Salomón Peceros Pedraza entail legal rights protected by domestic criminal law and the American Convention, including the victims’ right to life and right to personal integrity. This is why 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 that of the protected legal interest.456 It is clear that the conduct under complaint is openly contrary to the duties to respect and protect human rights, and therefore lies outside the bounds of military jurisdiction. Therefore, the intervention of the military justice system in the investigation and prosecution of the extrajudicial executions of Víctor Salomón Peceros Pedraza and Herma Luz Meléndez Cueva was contrary to the parameters concerning its exceptional and restrictive nature and involved the application of a personal jurisdiction that functioned without taking into account the nature of the acts involved. 457 404. Therefore, when the Supreme Court settled the jurisdictional dispute in favor of the military courts, it violated the guarantee of an ordinary judge called for in Article 8(1) of the American Convention, and as a result, the State incurred international responsibility in injury of the family members of Herma Luz Meléndez Cueva and Víctor Salomón Peceros Pedraza. Because the military courts were not competent, the Court holds that there is no need to rule on the Commission’s and representatives’ arguments regarding the alleged lack of independence and impartiality and other judicial guarantees. E. Alleged violation of the obligation to adopt domestic legal effects under the terms of Article 2, read in conjunction with Articles 8 and 25, of the American Convention Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 405. The Commission contended that the facts surrounding the alleged extrajudicial executions of Eduardo Nicolás Cruz Sánchez, Herma Luz Meléndez Cueva and Víctor Salomón Peceros Pedraza amounted to a breach of Article 2 of the American Convention, in injury of their families. It allowed that it had not addressed the alleged violation of this article in Admissibility Report 13/04, but “the facts on which it is built arose from information and documents that the parties supplied while the [...] case was being processed, and regarding which the State [had been] able to defend itself and submit its own arguments in the public 454 Case of Durand and Ugarte v. Peru. Merits, supra, para. 118. Cf. Case of Vélez Restrepo and family v. Colombia. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 3, 2012. Series C No. 248, para. 244, and Case of Rodríguez Vera et al. (the Disappeared from the Palace of Justice) v. Colombia, supra, para. 442. 455 Cf. Case of Vélez Restrepo and family v. Colombia, supra, para. 244, and Case of Osorio Rivera and family v. Peru, supra, para. 190. 456 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. 457