197. In this case, the State presented information about investigations conducted in the military criminal, disciplinary, and regular criminal jurisdictions. i) The Military Criminal Jurisdiction 198. The Commission notes that the State reported that in the investigation undertaken by the 109th Military Criminal Judge a series of procedures were carried out with respect to the UNASE and DAS personnel on the date of the events "in order to establish whether military personnel were linked” to them. 199. In that regard, the Commission recalls that special jurisdictions, such as the military criminal justice system, should have a restricted and exceptional scope and be designed to protect special juridical interests associated with the entity itself. The Inter-American Court has had the opportunity to analyze the structure and composition of special tribunals, such as military courts, in the light of the United Nations Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary and has reached the conclusion that such tribunals lack the necessary independence and impartiality to take cognizance of human rights violations.241 200. Taking the above criteria into account, the Inter-American Court has referred to the incompatibility with the American Convention of the use of military criminal tribunals in cases involving human rights violations, noting that the fact that the very same military forces are those “charged with prosecuting their peers for executing civilians” is problematic for the guarantee of independence and impartiality.242 Accordingly, the Inter-American court has found as a special jurisdiction, military courts “should only try military personnel for committing crimes or misdemeanors that, due to their nature, harm the juridical interests of the military system.”243 201. Consequently, the investigation in the military criminal jurisdiction of the possible involvement of State agents in the events surrounding the disappearance and subsequent death of Manuel Guillermo Omeara Miraval constitutes in itself a violation of the rights to a fair trial and judicial protection of the victim's family. ii) The Disciplinary Proceedings 202. The State informed the Commission that the the Delegate Procurator for Human Rights opened a disciplinary investigation, which was set aside because it was found that the report submitted by members of the police linking Major Jorge Alberto Lázaro Vegel to the activities of illegal armed groups “only provided a supposition.” The State provided no evidence of the decisions that were adopted in that proceeding and, therefore, the Commission has been unable to weigh the grounds for said decisions, particularly the one that led the investigation to be set aside. 203. As to the relevance of the results reported by the State to demonstrate due diligence in the investigation, the Commission recalls that disciplinary proceedings are not an adequate means to prosecute and punish human rights violations or redress their consequences.244 The Inter-American Court has determined that a disciplinary investigation “tends to protect the administrative function and the correction 241A number of relevant factors highlighted by the Court are: (i) that they are made up of active-duty officers who are hierarchically subordinate to higher-ranked officers through the chain of command; (ii) that their designation does not depend on their professional skills and qualifications to exercise judicial functions; and (iii) that they do not have sufficient guarantees that they will not be removed. Cf. I/A Court H.R., Case of Palamara Iribarne v. Chile. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 22, 2005, Series C, No. 135. par. 155 and 156. 242I/A Court H.R., Las Palmeras v. Colombia. Merits. Judgment of December 6, 2001. Series C No. 90, par. 53. Court H.R., Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 23, 2009. Series C No. 209, par. 272. 244 IACHR. Report No. 74/07 (Admissibility). José Antonio Romero Cruz et al. Colombia. October 15, 2007, par. 34. 243I/A 46