of law, the military criminal jurisdiction must have a restrictive and exceptional scope and be aimed at the protection of special rights related to the internal functions of the Military Forces. Therefore, the Court has indicated previously that the military jurisdiction should only try soldiers on active duty for the perpetration of offenses or misdemeanors that, owing to their nature, prejudice rights related to the internal functions of the Military Forces. 683 443. In addition, taking into account the nature of the crime and the right harmed, the military criminal jurisdiction is not the competent jurisdiction to investigate and, if appropriate, to prosecute and to punish the perpetrators of human rights violations; rather the prosecution of those responsible always corresponds to the ordinary justice system. In this regard, the Court has indicated that, when military justice assumes competence for a matter that should be heard by ordinary justice, the right to an ordinary judge and, a fortiori, to due process is harmed, and this, in turn, is closely related to the right of access to justice. The judge in charge of hearing a case must be competent, in addition to independent and impartial. 684 Thus, the victims of human rights violations and their families have the right that such violations be heard and decided by a competent court, in accordance with due process and access to justice. 685 444. The State argued that the intervention of the military jurisdiction is not prohibited by international law and that “the presumed partiality and absence of independence of [the said] authorities” or “the presumed violations of the standards in forced at the time” had not been proved. In this regard, the Court reiterates its indications to Colombia in the case of Vélez Restrepo, to the effect that the obligation that the violation of human rights, such as the rights to life and to personal integrity, be investigated by a competent judge is 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. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140, 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 Almonacid Arellano et al. v. Chile. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 154, paras. 131 and 134; Case of La Cantuta v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 29, 2006. Series C No. 162, para. 142 and 145; Case of the La Rochela Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C No. 163, para. 200 and 204; Case of Escué Zapata v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 165, para. 105; Case of Zambrano Vélez et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 166, para. 66; Case of Tiu Tojín v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 26, 2008. Series C No. 190, 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 to 275 and 283; Case of Fernández Ortega et al. v. Mexico. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 30, 2010. Series C No. 215, para. 176; Case of Rosendo Cantú et al. v. Mexico. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2010. Series C No. 216, paras. 160 and 163; Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 26, 2010. Series C No. 220, paras. 197 to 201; Case of Vélez Restrepo and family members v. Colombia. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 3, 2012. Series C No. 248, para. 240, 241, 243 and 244; Case of the Santo Domingo Massacre v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits and reparations. Judgment of November 30, 2012, para. 158, and Case of Osorio Rivera and family members v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 26, 2013. Series C No. 274, paras. 187 to 191. 683 Cf. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 30, 1999. Series C No. 59, para. 128, and Case of Osorio Rivera and family members v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 26, 2013. Series C No. 274, para. 187. 684 Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 30, 1999. Series C No. 59, para. 130, and Case of Osorio Rivera and family members v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 26, 2013. Series C No. 274, para. 188. 685 Cf. Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 23, 2009. Series C No. 209, para. 275, and Case of Osorio Rivera and family members v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 26, 2013. Series C No. 274, para. 188. 155