37 150. In that regard, the Inter-American Court has established that: […] “[w]hen the military jurisdiction assumes competence over a matter that should be heard by the ordinary jurisdiction, it is violating the right to a competent tribunal and, a fortiori, to due process,” 168 which is, at the same time, intimately related to the right to a fair trial. The judge responsible for 169170 hearing a case must be competent, as well as independent and impartial. 151. For its part, the Commission has maintained and maintains in the instant case that: The military criminal justice system has certain peculiar characteristics that impede access to an effective and impartial remedy in this jurisdiction. One of these is that military jurisdiction cannot be considered a real judicial system, as it is not part of the judicial branch, but is organized instead under the Executive. Another aspect is that the judges in the military judicial system are generally active-duty members of their comrades-in-arms, rendering illusory the requirement of impartiality, since the members of the Army often feel compelled to protect those who fight alongside them in a 171 difficult and dangerous context. 152. Contrary to those principles and the established precedent of the Inter-American system, the facts in the instant case were heard by a court that was not competent and which, as it will be demonstrated, was neither impartial nor independent. 153. In that regard, the Commission notes that the military courts cannot be an independent and impartial organ due to the fact that in the armed forces there is a “tradition of esprit de corpus”, which is sometimes mistakenly interpreted in the sense that they feel obligated to cover up crimes committed by 172 their comrades. The IACHR also considers that whenever military authorities evaluate actions whose active subject is another member of the Army impartiality becomes difficult, because investigations into the conduct of members of security forces carried out by other members of those forces tend to obscure 173 the facts rather than shed light on them. 154. The IACHR recalls that the impartiality of a court depends on its members not having a direct interest, a firm position, a preference for one of the parties or being involved in the case. In the matter at hand, the State did not conduct a separate judicial investigation into the extrajudicial and arbitrary executions different form the investigation conducted under military jurisdiction, although there was a specific request lodged by the relatives of the victims executed to remit the investigation to civil jurisdiction. The IACHR further notes that it took almost two years to resolve the request for a change of jurisdiction lodged by the relatives and more than three years to inform them of the decision; in other words, after the conviction issued by the military court of first instance, and after the acquittal of the members of the military. In that regard, the IACHR notes that the relatives did not have access to the military criminal proceedings of the persons involved in the executions, nor were they able to lodge a motion to challenge the rulings on the case issued by said jurisdiction. 155. The Commission also notes that in the investigation under military jurisdiction, not only were the relatives denied access, but the several survivors of the incidents, some of them seriously injured, who should have been considered victims in the proceedings, were not asked to provide testimony either. The Commission notes that only the military servicemen involved, the driver of the truck and one of the survivors, provided testimony. 168 IA Court H.R.,Case Radilla Pacheco vs. Mexico. Judgment of Preliminary exceptions, merits, reparations and costs. November 23, 2009 par. 273, Case Castillo Petruzzi et al vs. Peru, supra note 54, par. 128; Case Palamara Iribarne vs. Chile, supra note 274, par. 143, and Case Tiu Tojín vs. Guatemala, supra note 24, par. 118. 169 IA Court H.R., Case Ivcher Bronstein. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 6, 2001. Series C No. 74, par.112; Case 19 Comerciantes, supra note 274, par. 167, and Case Escué Zapata vs. Colombia, supra note 56, par. 101. 170 IA Court H.R., Case Radilla Pacheco vs. México. Judgment of Preliminary exceptions, merits, reparations and costs. November 23, 2009, par. 273, Case Durand and Ugarte vs. Peru, supra note 274, par. 118; Case La Cantuta vs. Peru, supra note 51, par. 142; and, Case of the Massacre of la Rochela vs. Colombia, supra note 83, par. 200. 171 IACHR. Report Nº 2/06 (Merits). Case 12.130, Miguel Orlando Muñoz Guzmán vs. Mexico February 28, 2006, par. 83. 172 IACHR. Third Report on the Human Rights Situation in Colombia, pars. 26-29. 173 IACHR. Third Report on the Human Rights situation in Colombia, par. 19.