stated that only active soldiers shall be prosecuted within the military jurisdiction “for the commission of crimes or offenses that based on their own nature threaten the juridical rights of the military order itself”.316 216. Available information, to the date of the events, finds that Article 221 of the Political Constitution already established the military criminal jurisdiction,317 according to which said special jurisdiction was to be applied to offenses committed in active duty and with relation to the military service itself. The Commission notes that the lack of an enabling law for said Article, which is open in defining an “act of service,” allowed for a broader interpretation that also allowed for the special jurisdiction to be applied in the analysis of the cases that refer to human rights violations by members of the military forces during alleged clashes, like the instant. This finding coincides with what has previously held by the Commission and the United Nations Special Rapporteurs in the sense that this concept of an “act of service” established in Article 221 was interpreted broadly, to the point of including human rights violations, even under the basis of the argument that the act committed while in duty (act of service) includes anything that a member of the armed forces may do while in uniform.318 217. The Commission notes that the study of cases of human rights violations by this special jurisdiction meant that these were studied by members of the public forces and not by judicial judges. It was a special jurisdiction in which members of the military forces heard and decided on actions of their peers and according to the chain of command existing in the military regimen. On this regard, these judges could be pressured and ordered to acquit soldiers from any responsibility in an incompatible way with the guarantees of impartiality and Independence. 218. Pursuant to the foregoing considerations, the Commission considers that the use of the military justice system to analyze this case in whole meant that the State did not offer Mr. Gustavo Giraldo Villamizar’s next of kin an investigation and criminal process with independent and impartial judges, in violation of Article 8 and 25 of the Convention, in relation with its Article 1(1). ii) In relation to the due diligence in the investigation 219. Notwithstanding the aforementioned, as to which all the investigations and criminal processes were incompatible with the American Convention, the Commission deems it appropriate to include some considerations about the State’s duty to investigate with due diligence. A joint analysis of the proceedings carried out by the State, establishes that since the beginning of the investigation there were important omissions affecting the possibilities of knowing the truth about what happened. Thus, the Commission notes that the following omissions and shortcomings reflect the lack of due diligence on the part of the State: - First, the crime scene was exposed to several members of the armed forces. While, according to some militaries, the clash took place between 11 pm and 1 am, the collection of the corpse took place at 1:45 pm, which means that there was a period of time in which Mr. Villamizar’s body was exposed and could have been touched or changed. 316 I/A Court H.R., Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 23, 2009. Series C No. 209, para. 272. 317 As described by the Commission in its Third Report on the Human Rights Situation in Colombia, the military jurisdiction is regulated by Article 221 of Constitution which establishes that the crimes committed by members of the armed forces “on active duty and in relation to the military service itself” will be of the jurisdiction of military courts. IACHR, Third Report on the Human Rights Situation in Colombia, Chapter IV. Violence and Violations of International Human Rights and Humanitarian Law, OEA/Sr.L/V/II.102, February 26, 1999, para. 166. 318 IACHR, Third Report on the Human Rights Situation in Colombia, Chapter IV. Violence and Violations of International Human Rights and Humanitarian Law, Chapter V. Administration of Justice and Rule of Law, OEA/Sr.L/V/II.102, February 26, 1999, para. 27. 318 Economic and Social Council, Joint report of the Special Rapporteur on the question of torture, Mr. Nigel S. Rodley, and the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, Mr. Bacre Waly Ndiaye, submitted pursuant to Commission on Human Rights resolutions 1994/37 and 1994/82, E/CN.4/1995/111 16 January 1995, para. 90. Available at: http://extrajudicialexecutions.org/application/media/E_CN_4_1995_111.pdf