of access to justice.126 The judge in charge of hearing a case must have jurisdiction, as well as be independent and impartial.127 In this sense, the victims of human rights violations and their families have the right to have such violations heard and resolved by a court having jurisdiction, in accordance with due process and access to justice,128 which, ultimately, was not guaranteed to the alleged victims in the instant case. 152. The Court emphasizes that the State recognized that both the investigation and the process brought before the military criminal jurisdiction were not in accordance with interAmerican standards, given that said court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear facts related to human rights violations. Thus, the Court finds that the ordinary judge's recusal from hearing the case, the period during which the case was heard by the military jurisdiction, and the dismissal decision issued by the latter, which was then confirmed and, to date, has determined that the facts have not been clarified and that the pertinent responsibilities have not been deduced, constituted violations of the guarantee of the natural judge and, with it, the rights to due process and access to justice of the alleged victims. 129 In the Court's opinion, the foregoing makes no further examination necessary as to compliance with other judicial guarantees in the framework of the criminal proceeding processed before the military justice system. 153. Ecuador also indicated that, based on the final report of the Truth Commission, which “documented” the alleged victims and “determined” the participation of the alleged perpetrators, the necessary measures have been taken to investigate the facts. In this regard, the State Attorney General's Office, in accordance with the legal reform on issues of military justice, has carried out the necessary steps to clarify what happened. 154. Given the argument made, the Court recalls that States can establish truth commissions, which contribute to the construction and preservation of historical memory, the clarification of facts, and the determination of institutional, social, and political responsibilities in certain historical periods of a society. 130 However, this neither completes nor replaces the obligation of the State to determine the truth through judicial proceedings. 131 155. Meanwhile, Ecuador provided documentary evidence proving that, based on the content of the final report of the Truth Commission and since 2011, the Office of the Prosecutor General initiated the investigation aimed at clarifying what had happened. Among other proceedings, in November 2018, it performed exhumation and expert examination of "[i]ntraorganic and [c]omprehensive [b]alistics" on the body of Luis Eduardo Casierra Quiñonez; different information has been compiled, statements have been received from different people, and other types of investigative actions have been ordered, including various expert opinions. 132 Cf. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 30, 1999. Series C No. 52, para. 128, and Case of Alvarado Espinoza et al. v. Mexico Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 28, 2018. Series C No. 370, para. 232. 127 Cf. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru, supra, para. 130, and Case of Tenorio Roca et al. v. Peru Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of June 22, 2016. Series C No. 314, para. 195. 128 Cf. Case of Radilla-Pacheco v. Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 23, 2009. Series C No. 209, para. 275, and Case of Tenorio Roca et al. v. Peru, supra, para. 195. 129 Cf. Mutatis mutandis, Case of Tenorio Roca et al. v. Peru, supra, para. 201. 130 Cf. Case of Zambrano Vélez et al. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 128, and Case of Grijalva Bueno v. Ecuador, supra, para. 129. 131 Cf. Case of Zambrano Vélez et al. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 128, and Case of Garzón Guzmán et al. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 87. 132 Cf. Updated report on progress in the investigation of the “Case of the Casierra Brothers,” letter No. FGEGCVDH-2019-002357-0 of May 6, 2019, signed by the head of the Directorate of the Truth and Human Rights Commission of the Office of the Office of the Prosecutor General (evidence file, volume IV, annex 67 to the answering brief, folios 5183 to 5203); memorandum No. FGE-CGAJP-DDHPC-2019-00410-M of December 4, 2019, “Casierra Case Information”, signed by the Prosecutor from the Human Rights and Citizen Participation Directorate of the Office of the Prosecutor General (evidence file, volume IV, annex 68 to the answering brief, folios 5205 and 5206), and memorandum No. FGE-CGAJP-DDHPC-2021-00400-M, of March 25, 2021, “Supplement the report related to the Case 126 36