45 impartial and effective investigation, has not offered a satisfactory and convincing explanation of the facts, and has not rebutted, based on the evidence, the allegations concerning its liability. To the contrary, the IACHR observes that the State remanded the matter to the military jurisdiction, which refused the next of kin access to the executed victims and acquitted the military personnel involved, leaving the facts in this case totally unpunished. 201. Based on the foregoing, the Commission considers that the State exceeded the bounds of the military justice sphere in contravention of the parameters of exceptionality and restriction that characterize the military criminal jurisdiction and extended the competence of the military jurisdiction to crimes that had no direct relation to military discipline or to the legally protected interests of that jurisdiction, freed the military personnel involved in the events, and denied the next of kin of the executed victims a fair trial.  In relation to the criminal proceeding 202. According to Article 8(1) of the Convention, one of the elements of due process is that the cases brought before the courts are decided within a reasonable time and by a competent judge. In this 205 sense, a protracted delay can constitute, per se, a violation of judicial guarantees. The reasonability of 206 the time period should be analyzed with regard to the total duration of the criminal proceeding. 203. The Commission recalls that as soon as the State realizes that its Security Forces have used firearms and that this has resulted in the death of a person or harm to his personal integrity, it has the obligation to open, ex officio and without delay, a serious, independent, impartial and effective investigation. This derives from the obligation of States to “to see that their security forces, which are 207 entitled to use legitimate force, respect the life of the individuals under their jurisdiction.” Moreover, as the Court has specified in cases of alleged extrajudicial killings, […] it is essential that the States effectively investigate the deprivation of the right to life, and in its case, punish all those responsible, especially when state agents are involved, since on the contrary, it would be creating, within an environment of impunity, the conditions necessary for the repetition of this type of facts, which is contrary to the duty to respect and guarantee the right to life. Besides, if the acts that violate human rights are not investigated seriously, they would, in some 208 way, result aided by public power, which compromises the State’s international responsibility. …continuation Series C No. 147, para. 120. Inter-Am. Ct. H.R., Case of Servellón García et al v. Honduras. Judgment of September 21, 2006. Series C No. 152, para. 123; Inter-Am. Ct. H.R., Case of Baldeón García v. Peru. Judgment of April 6, 2006. Series C No. 147, para. 91; Inter-Am. Ct. H.R., Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140, para. 145; Inter-Am. Ct. H.R., Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre” v. Colombia. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134, paras. 137 and 232. Inter-Am. Ct. H.R., Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez v. Honduras. Judgment of June 7, 2003. Series C No. 99, para. 112. See also Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160, para. 256, and Inter-Am. Ct. H.R., Case of Vargas Areco v. Paraguay. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 155, para. 77. In a similar sense, see also ECHR, Erdogan and Others v. Turkey, 25 April 2006, no. 19807/92, paras. 122-123, and ECHR, Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria [GC], nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98, paras. 111-112, 6 July 2005. 205 Inter-Am. Ct. H.R., Case of García Asto and Ramírez Rojas v. Peru. Judgment of November 25, 2005. Series C No. 137, para. 166; Inter-Am. Ct. H.R., Case of Gómez Palomino v. Peru. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 136, para. 85; and Inter-Am. Ct. H.R., Case of the Moiwana Community v. Suriname. Judgment of June 15, 2005. Series C No. 124, para. 160. 206 Inter-Am. Ct. H.R., Case of López Álvarez v. Honduras. Judgment of February 1, 2006. Series C No. 141, para. 129; Inter-Am. Ct. H.R., Case of Acosta Calderón v. Ecuador. Judgment of June 24, 2005. Series C No. 129, para. 104; and Inter-Am. Ct. H.R., Case of Tibi v. Ecuador. Judgment of September 7, 2004. Series C No. 114, para. 168. 207 Inter-Am. Ct. H.R., Case of Zambrano Vélez et al v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 166, para.81; Inter-Am. Ct. H.R., Case of Montero Aranguren et al (Detention Center of Catia) v. Venezuela. Judgment of July 5, 2006. Series C No. 150, para. 66. See also Inter-Am. Ct. H.R., Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160, para. 238, and Inter-Am. Ct. H.R., Case of Servellón García et al v. Honduras. Judgment of September 21, 2006. Series C No. 152, para. 102. 208 Inter-Am. Ct. H.R., Case of Servellón García et al v. Honduras. Judgment of September 21, 2006. Series C No. 152, para. 123; Inter-Am. Ct. H.R., Case of Baldeón García v. Peru. Judgment of April 6, 2006. Series C No. 147, para. 91; Inter-Am. Ct. H.R., Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140, para. 145; Inter-Am. Ct. H.R., Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre” v. Colombia. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134, paras. 137 and 232.