78 their rights to the truth and to justice […]. In that sense, the victims of the violations of human rights and their next of kin have the right to have said violations heard and resolved by a competent tribunal, pursuant with the due process of law and the right to a fair trial. The importance of the passive subject transcends the sphere of the military realm, since juridical rights characteristic of the ordinary regimen are involved.305 198. In summary, according to the case law of this Court, the military jurisdiction is not the competent jurisdiction to investigate and, in its case, prosecute and punish the authors of alleged violations of human rights but that instead the processing of those responsible always corresponds to the ordinary justice system. This conclusion applies not only to cases of torture, forced disappearance and rape, but to all human rights violations. 199. Subjecting a person to inhuman, cruel or degrading treatment by military officers is not related, under any circumstance, to the military discipline or mission. On the contrary, the alleged acts committed by military officers against Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel affected juridical rights protected by the domestic criminal law and the American Convention, like the integrity and personal dignity of the victims. It is clear that such conduct is openly contrary to the duties of respect and protection of the human rights and, therefore, is excluded from the competence of the military jurisdiction. Based on the foregoing considerations, the Court concludes that the intervention of the military courts in the preliminary inquiry of torture was contrary with the parameters of exceptionality and restriction characteristic of such courts and entailed the application of a personal jurisdiction that was exercised without taking into account the nature of the acts involved.306 200. This conclusion is valid in the instant case even though the fact did not go beyond the investigative stage of the Office of the Public Prosecutor for Military Justice. As it springs from the criteria mentioned, the incompatibility of the American Convention with the intervention of the military courts in this type of cases does not only refer to the tribunal’s duty to prosecute, but mainly to the investigation itself, given that its conduct constitutes the beginning and the necessary premise for the subsequent intervention of an incompetent tribunal.307 201.Hence, regarding the arguments of the State in the sense that the deficiencies related to the intervention of the military criminal courts would be remedied due to the fact that in the investigation against Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel at the regular court, the allegations of torture were heard in order to establish whether it corresponded to exclude certain evidence, it is clear that the exclusive objective of said proceeding was not to investigate, prosecute and, if applicable, punish the alleged responsible for torture. Therefore, it is not possible to remedy or confirm the effects of a judicial investigation launched in light of the specific complaint regarding torture or mistreatment, with the decisions made within the proceeding, the investigative line of which was not to shed light on facts but, on the contrary, to investigate the claimants. Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes that the State violated the right to a fair trial [judicial guarantess] enshrined in article 8(1) of the American Convention, in conjunction with article 1(1) therein, to the 305 Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico, supra note 302, para. 275; 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. 306 Cf. Case of Fernandez Ortega et al v. Mexico, supra note 39, para. 177; and Case of Rosendo Cantú et al v. Mexico, supra note 30, para. 161. 307 Cf. Case of Fernandez Ortega et al v. Mexico, supra note 39, para. 177; and Case of Rosendo Cantú et al v. Mexico, supra note 30, para. 161.