5 to the military jurisdiction: only for military officers in active service and regarding issues strictly related to the military function, firm jurisprudence which constitutes a valuable contribution by the Inter-American Court to the solution of issues which have often appeared in our region. Should this be the case, the application of the military jurisdiction on a civilian and regarding issues which go beyond the military function turns out to be incompatible with the Convention, particularly with regard to Article 8: the judge or court is not naturally competent, without discussing here if he or it gathers the other characteristics required by the same provision, which has been a matter of discussion in the case of trials followed by other types of crimes which affect or are supposed to affect the public or national security, with regard to which the court and the defendant are –or seem to be-, each in a different trench, members of the fighting forces. 17. I return to the remarks with which I began this Opinion, so as to come to a conclusion therefrom and from the development of the precedent paragraphs. If the existence of a competent judge or court is a requirement of the proceeding and not a mere element thereof, along with those of fair trial, and if in certain hypothesis there was no such a competent judge or court, the acts performed before someone who does not bear this condition can not be considered as procedural acts in the strict sense, nor can the aggregate be qualified as true proceeding, nor its conclusion as authentic judgment. 18. Should it be the case, the Court judging violations against human rights may restrict itself to determine the capacity of the acting tribunal for the reasons described above, without being necessary for it to qualify –more precisely, to disqualify- each act performed in the alleged proceeding, taking into account the specific deficiencies those acts present: defense, legal representation, evidence, remedies, etc. Even if these proceedings had taken place with stricter attachment to the American Convention, they would not be considered as true procedural acts, nor the final decision would gain the force of authentic judgment, because both would lack the requirement –the grounds- on which the proceeding is built: a competent court, that is to say, a body vested with the indispensable jurisdictional powers to take up a certain case regarding both subject matter and in personam jurisdiction – or the profession of the person-, and the rule of equality between the parties, which only admits limited and rigorous exceptions. 19. As I have pointed out, freedom of expression constitutes another of the relevant issues of this case, according to the claim that gave rise to the proceeding before the Inter-American Court. This court did not perform a detailed and thorough revision of the characteristics of the freedom of expression with regard to the publication of the questioned book. It did not seem necessary to do so, as the information handled by the defendant came from open sources and had been of public domain. This circumstance made it unnecessary to analyze the issue any further. Had the situation been different, a situation which had led to deepest reflections, it would have been necessary to analyze how the Convention operates with regard to the State obligations and the freedoms and duties of the individual – including the duty of confidentiality and the consequences of failing to comply with it-, the rights and restrictions of Article 13 and the provisions included in Articles 29 and 32(2) of the Convention. This analysis shall be addressed some other time in the future. 20. The Court presented some considerations regarding the crime of contempt in the context of freedom of expression. I agree with the Court observations with