53 law and, a fortiori, to due process,” which, in turn, is closely related to access to justice. The judge in charge of hearing a case shall be competent, as well as independent, and impartial.213 In situations that violate the human rights of civilians, the military jurisdiction may not operate under any circumstance.214 The Court has emphasized that when the military courts hear cases involving acts that constitute violations of the human rights of civilians, they exercise jurisdiction not only with regard to the accused, who must necessarily be someone on active military duty, but also with regard to the civilian victim, who has the right to participate in the criminal proceedings not only for the effects of the corresponding reparation of the damage but also to exercise his or her rights to the truth and to justice […]. In this regard, the victims of human right violations and their next of kin have the right to these violations being heard and decided by a competent tribunal, pursuant to due process and access to justice. The importance of the passive subject transcends the military sphere, because juridical rights that belong to the ordinary forum are involved.215 161. In no case does the rape of someone by military personnel bear a relationship to the military discipline or mission. To the contrary, the offense committed by military personnel against Mrs. Rosendo Cantú affected juridical rights protected by domestic law and the American Convention, such as the victim’s personal integrity and dignity. It is evident that such conduct is openly contrary to the obligations to respect and to protect human rights, and consequently, is excluded from the competence of the military jurisdiction. Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes that the intervention of the military justice system in the preliminary investigation of the rape was contrary to the parameters concerning the exceptional and restrictive nature of that system and involved the application of the military jurisdiction that functioned without taking into account the nature of the acts involved. This conclusion is valid in the present case, even though the incident is only at the investigation stage by the Military Public Prosecutor’s Office. As revealed by the criteria indicated above, the incompatibility of the American Convention with the intervention of the military justice system in this type of case does not refer merely to the act of prosecution, which is the responsibility of a court, but essentially to the investigation itself, because this procedure constitutes the beginning and the necessary grounds for the subsequent intervention of an incompetent court. Based on the above, the Court finds that the State violated the rights to judicial guarantees and to judicial protection established in Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Mrs. Rosendo Cantú. As in previous cases216 when it has found that the military criminal jurisdiction is not competent, the Court considers that it is not necessary to rule on the other arguments concerning the independence and impartiality of the military justice system or the possible violation, based on the same facts, under other Inter-American instruments. * * * 162. Moreover, the Court observes that the intervention of the military justice system was based on Article 57(ii)(a) of the Code of Military Justice217 (supra para. 144). In this regard, the Court reiterates that this provision: 213 Case of Radilla Pacheco, supra note 36, para. 273. 214 Case of Radilla Pacheco, supra note 36, para. 274. 215 Case of Radilla Pacheco, supra note 36, para. 275. 216 Cf. Case of Cantoral Benavides, supra note 125, para. 115, and Case of Usón Ramírez v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2009. Series C No. 207, para. 124. 217 Article 57(II)(a) of the Code of Military Justice, in what is relevant, states: The following are crimes against military order: II.- Those of the common or federal jurisdiction, when the commission has involved any of the circumstances hereby stated: a) when committed by military personnel while on duty or as a result of acts of the same[.]