emphasizes that it was not part of the factual framework nor was it proven that the violation of due process and the lack of access to justice was derived from any factor that entailed unequal treatment of the alleged victims. To this effect, as the State affirmed, the regulations in force at the time of the facts were those that determined the actions of the ordinary jurisdiction and the military jurisdiction be taken in the manner in which they were, all of which was analyzed at the appropriate time. As a result, no decision can be taken in relation to said allegation. B.1. Intervention of the military criminal jurisdiction in this case 148. The first element to be analyzed concerns the actions of the military criminal jurisdiction, excluding the ordinary jurisdiction, in the investigation of the facts related to the death of Luis Eduardo and the injuries caused to his brothers, Andrés Alejandro and Sebastián Darlin, all with the surnames Casierra Quiñonez. 149. In that regard, The Court recalls its consistent case law regarding the limits of the military jurisdiction of the military jurisdiction to hear facts that constitute violations of human rights, in the sense that, in a democratic State of Law, the military criminal jurisdiction must have a restrictive and exceptional scope, and must be aimed at protecting special legal interests connected to the functions of the armed forces. For this reason, the Court has indicated that in the military jurisdiction, only active military personnel may be judged for the commission of crimes or misdemeanors that by their very nature violate legal rights of the military order.123 The fact that the subjects involved belong to the armed forces or that the events occurred within a military establishment does not mean, per se, that military justice should intervene. This is the case because, considering the nature of the crime and the legal right that has been violated, the military criminal jurisdiction is not the competent subject matter jurisdiction to investigate and, where appropriate, prosecute and punish the perpetrators of human rights violations; rather, the prosecution of those responsible always corresponds to ordinary or common justice. 124 In the case of Grijalva Bueno v. Ecuador, the Court pointed out that officials from the military criminal jurisdiction “were hierarchically subordinate to the Executive Branch and, therefore, were not independent judges.” 125 150. In the instant case, the investigation proceedings regarding the facts began immediately. At the same time, the military jurisdiction and the ordinary jurisdiction ordered their respective processes, until the latter, in February 2000 and in accordance with the constitutional and legal regulations in force at the time of the events, refrained from continuing hearing the case and sent the proceedings on to the first. In the end, the Judge of the Third Naval Zone issued a Resolution of May 24, 2000, ordering the definitive dismissal of the process in favor of the three marines involved in the events, a decision that was upheld by the Court of Military Justice (supra paras. 86 and 87). 151. Along these lines, the Court has indicated that when the military justice assumes jurisdiction over a matter that should be heard by the ordinary justice system, the right to a natural judge is affected and, a fortiori, due process, which is closely linked to the very right Cf. Case of Durand and Ugarte v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of August 16, 2000. Series C No. 68, para. 117, and Case of Herzog et al. v. Brazil. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of March 15, 2018. Series C No. 353, para. 247. 124 Cf. Case of the Rochela Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C No. 163, para. 200, and Case of Herzog et al. v. Brazil, supra, para. 247, and Case of Coc Max et al. (Xamán Massacre) v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 22, 2018. Series C No. 356, para. 84. See also written expert opinion rendered by Rodrigo Bustos Bottai (evidence file, volume XI, written expert opinion, folios 5267 to 5270). 125 Cf. Case of Grijalva Bueno v. Ecuador, supra, para. 97. 123 35