79 detriment of Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel. As it has held in previous cases,308 based on the conclusion that the military criminal courts were not competent, the Tribunal considers that it is not necessary to adjudge and declare regarding the other arguments related to the independence or impartiality of the military courts or the possible violation, in relation to the same facts, of other Inter-American treaties. 3. Effective judicial remedy in the military criminal justice system 202. As to the alleged inexistence of an effective remedy to contest the military jurisdiction, the Court has stated that Article 25(1) of the Convention contemplates the duty of the States Parties to ensure to all persons subject to their jurisdiction an effective recourse against acts that violate their fundamental rights.309 203. As has been previously indicated (supra para. 196) during the processing of preliminary inquiry SC/304/2000/VII-I, on February 10, 2001, Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel presented a brief before the PGJM, by means of which they demanded that it decline jurisdiction and return the Preliminary Inquiry to the common jurisdiction. However, said petition was not answered. In this respect, the representatives alleged that “before this omission" the victims "were unable to challenge the scope of the military jurisdiction regarding the investigation into the torture committed against them.” The State did not contest the lack of response to the above mentioned request and it did not refer to this argument. 204. In application of the previously mentioned standards regarding the effectiveness of the judicial remedies and taking into account the decisions made by the military courts, this Tribunal concludes that Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel could not effectively contest the jurisdiction of such military courts to hear the matters that, due to their nature, corresponded to the authorities of the common jurisdiction. Consequently, Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel did not have effective remedies at their disposal to challenge the competence of the military justice over said allegations of torture. Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes that the State violated the right to judicial protection enshrined in article 25(1) of the American Convention, in conjunction with article 1(1) therein, to the detriment of Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel. 4. Adapting the Mexican domestic law regarding the intervention of the military criminal courts 205. On the other hand, the Tribunal notes that the intervention of the military jurisdiction was based on article 57(II)(a) of the Code of Military Justice310 (supra para. 189). In this respect, the Court reiterates that said norm: is an ample and imprecise provision that prevents the determination of the strict connection of the ordinary jurisdiction crime with the military 308 Cf. Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru, supra note 272, para. 115; 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. 309 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary Objections, supra note 213, para. 91; Case of Fernandez Ortega et al v. Mexico, supra note 39, para. 180; and Case of Rosendo Cantú et al v. Mexico, supra note 30, para. 164. 310 Article 57. II.a) of the Code of Military Justice provides, in its pertinent part: “Crimes against military discipline are: II. Common or federal crimes when any of the following circumstances attend their commission: a) The crimes were committed by military officers in active service or in connection with active service.