77 “in the body of evidence of this inquiry there is not sufficient evidence to demonstrate that civilians RODOLFO MONTIEL FLORES and TEODORO CABRERA GARCÍA were tortured while in the custody of military personnel. […] To refer the present inquiry to the Prosecutor General for Military Justice, with a reasoned report proposing that no criminal action be brought and that the inquiry be definitively filed, with the exceptions that the law provides, so that after consulting his assigned agents, he may decide whether or not to confirm the proposal […].”301 197. Regarding the intervention of the military courts to hear facts that constitute human rights violations, this Tribunal recalls that it has declared in this respect in relation to Mexico in the Judgment of the case of Radilla Pacheco, a precedent that has been repeated in the cases of Fernandez Ortega and Rosendo Cantu. Taking into account the foregoing and what was mentioned by the State (supra para. 188), for the purposes of this case, the Tribunal deems sufficient to repeat that: [i]n a democratic State of law, the military criminal jurisdiction shall have a restrictive and exceptional scope and be directed toward the protection of special juridical interests, related to the tasks characteristic of the military forces. Therefore, the Tribunal has previously stated that only active soldiers shall be prosecuted within the military jurisdiction for the perpetration of crimes or offenses that based on their own nature threaten the juridical rights of the military order itself.302 Likewise, […] taking into account the nature of the crime and the juridical right damaged, military criminal jurisdiction is not the competent jurisdiction to investigate and, in its case, prosecute and punish the authors of violations of human rights but that instead the processing of those responsible always corresponds to the ordinary justice system. In that sense, the Court, on multiple occasions, has indicated that “[w]hen the military jurisdiction assumes competence over a matter that should be heard by the ordinary jurisdiction, it violates the right to a competent tribunal and, a fortiori, to a due process,” which is, at the same time, intimately related to the right to a fair trial. The judge in charge of hearing a case shall be competent, as well as independent and impartial.303 Regarding situations that violate human rights of civilians, the military jurisdiction cannot operate under any circumstance.304 The Court [has] point[ed] out that when the military courts hear of acts that constitute violations to human rights against civilians they exercise jurisdiction not only with regard to the defendant, who must necessarily be a person with an active military status, but also with regard to the civil victim, who has the right to participate in the criminal proceeding not only for the effects of the corresponding reparation of the damage but also to exercise 301 Cf. Decision of the Preliminary Inquiry SC/304/2000/VIII-I of November 3, 2001, initiated in light of Recommendation 08/2000 of the National Commission on Human Rights of Mexico (Record of annexes to the application, volume XIX, folios 8364 to 8367). 302 Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 23, 2009. Series C Nº 209 para. 272; Case of Fernandez Ortega et al v. Mexico, supra note 39, para. 176; and Case of Rosendo Cantú et al v. Mexico, supra note 30, para. 160. 303 Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico, supra note 302, para. 273; Case of Fernandez Ortega et al v. Mexico, supra note 39, para. 176; and Case of Rosendo Cantú et al v. Mexico, supra note 30, para. 160. 304 Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico, supra note 302, para. 274; Case of Fernandez Ortega et al v. Mexico, supra note 39, para. 176; and Case of Rosendo Cantú et al v. Mexico, supra note 30, para. 160.