56 pursuant to the basic rules of international law since it constitutes a crime against humanity. The State has violated its obligation to modify its domestic legislation in order to guarantee the rights embodied in the American Convention because it has enforced and still keeps in force Decree Law No. 2.191, which does not exclude crimes against humanity from the general amnesty it grants. Finally, the State has violated the right to a fair trial and the right to judicial protection and has not complied with its obligation to respect guarantees in detriment of the next of kin of Mr. Almonacid-Arellano, given the fact that it applied Decree Law No. 2.191 to the instant case. B) Regarding the military jurisdiction 130. The American Convention in its Article 8(1) establishes that every person has the right to a hearing by a competent, independent, and impartial court. Thus, the Court has pointed out that “all persons subject to trial of any kind before a State body must have the guarantee that such body is impartial and acts in accordance with the procedure established by law to hear and decide the case submitted to it.”152 131. The Court has established that in a democratic State, the military criminal jurisdiction must have a restrictive scope and must be exceptional and aimed at the protection of special legal interests related to the functions that the law assigns to the Military. Therefore, it must only try military men for the commission of crimes or offenses that due to their nature may affect military interests.153 In that respect, the Court has held that “when the military courts assume jurisdiction over a matter that should be heard by the regular courts, the right to the competent judge is violated, as is, a fortiori, due process of law, which, in turn, is closely linked to the right of access to justice.”154 132. In the instant case, the Court has considered proven that on September 27, 1996 the Second Military Court of Santiago requested the First Criminal Court of Rancagua to decline jurisdiction to continue hearing the case on the grounds that on the date the events occurred the accused were under military jurisdiction (supra para. 82(16)). As a consequence of the aforesaid, the Supreme Court of Justice of Chile decided the issue of jurisdiction in favor of the Military Jurisdiction (supra para. 82(17)) and closed the investigation in the instant case by the application of selfamnesty Decree Law (supra paras. 82(20) and 82(21)). 133. Considering the aforesaid, the Court determines that the State has violated Article 8(1) of the American Convention, together with Article 1(1) thereof on the grounds that it granted jurisdiction to the military courts to hear the instant case, while said courts do not comply with the standards of competence, independence and impartiality mentioned above. 152 Cf. Case of Herrera-Ulloa, supra note 13. para. 169; and Case of the Constitutional Court. Judgment of January 31, 2001. Series C No. 71, para. 77. 153 Cf. Case of Palamara-Iribarne. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 135, para. 124; Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre,” supra note 137, para. 202; and Case of 19 Tradesmen, supra note 139, para. 165. 154 Cf. Case of Palamara-Iribarne, supra note 153, para. 143; Case of 19 Tradesmen, supra note 139, para. 167; and Case of Las Palmeras. Judgment of December 6, 2001. Series C No. 90, para. 52.