43. Subsequently, in view of the jurisdictional dispute initiated by the Judge of the Fifth Military Court of the Second Judicial Zone of the Army, beginning with the investigation into the same acts conducted for the crime of abuse of authority against Ilaquita Quispe, the Supreme Court of Justice ruled that the military courts had jurisdiction to hear the case. This decision also had the effect of supporting the decision not to have the civil courts investigate the alleged conduct of torture, and of determining that what was involved was a crime in the course of duty. This decision in turn exhausted domestic remedies, since such decisions are not subject to appeals of any kind. 44. Given the procedural status of this petition, with the account of the facts by the petitioner, and the fragmented documentation submitted by the State, to which the petitioners claim to have no access to because it is a military case, the Commission is of the opinion that it may ultimately be established, if proof is presented, that the State violated its international obligation, and specifically its obligation to ensure an investigation by the ordinary courts into the acts of torture that were alleged by COMISEDH. 45. Likewise, as the investigation and the criminal proceedings in the case of the acts described in the complaint progress in the military courts, since the case involves conduct that could be covered by the legal definition in Article 321 of the Peruvian Criminal Code,15 as well as Article 2 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture,16 which the Peruvian State has signed and ratified (Supra 26), such acts could constitute a violation of Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, considered in relation to its Article 5, because of the injuries suffered by the alleged victim. 46. The Commission has consistently maintained that military courts are not the appropriate forum, and therefore do not provide adequate recourse, for investigating, prosecuting, and punishing human rights violations established in the American Convention or in other regional instruments that are allegedly committed by members of police or security forces or with their cooperation or assent.17 In this vein, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights has ruled that in a democratic state under the rule of law, said jurisdiction should have a restricted, exceptional scope, designed to protect special legal interests linked to the functions assigned to military forces by the law. Consequently, it should only judge soldiers for crimes or misdemeanors which, by their nature, are a violation of the military’s own legal interests.18 47. At this point, for the purposes of admissibility, the Commission concludes that there is sufficient evidence to sustain the position that the acts, if proven, could constitute violations of human rights, and that the complaint does not qualify as clearly unfounded or obviously without merit. 15 Chapter III: Torture. Article 321. A public servant or official, or any person with their consent, who inflicts serious physical or mental pain or suffering on another person, or who submits another to conditions or methods that obliterate their personality or diminish their physical or mental capacity, even though they do not cause physical pain or mental affliction, for the purpose of obtaining from the victim or a third party a confession or information, or of punishing that person for any act that he may have committed or suspected of having committed, or of intimidating or coercing the person, shall be reprimanded with the punishment of deprivation of liberty for no less than five and no more than ten years. If the torture causes the death of the injured party or produces serious injury and the agent could have foreseen such results, the punishment of deprivation of liberty shall be for no less than eight and no more than twenty years in the first case, and no more than six or less than twelve years in the second one. 16 Article 2. For the purposes of this Convention, torture shall be understood to be any act intentionally performed whereby physical or mental pain or suffering is inflicted on a person for purposes of criminal investigation, as a means of intimidation, as personal punishment, as a preventive measure, as a penalty, or for any other purpose. Torture shall also be understood to be the use of methods upon a person intended to obliterate the personality of the victim or to diminish his physical or mental capacities, even if they do not cause physical pain or mental anguish. The concept of torture shall not include physical or mental pain or suffering that is inherent in or solely the consequence of lawful measures provided that they do not include the performance of the acts or use of the methods referred to in this article. 17 IACHR, Admissibility Report N° 13/04. Petition 136/03, Eduardo Nicolás Cruz Sánchez et al., Peru, February 27, 2004, paragraph 59. 11,748, Pueblo Bello, Colombia (2002), para. 24; Third Report on the Human Rights Situation in Colombia (1999), p. 175; Second Report on the Human Rights Situation in Colombia (1993), p. 246; Report on the Human Rights Situation in Brazil (1997), pp. 40-42. 18 Inter-American Court, Case of Nineteen Merchants, Judgment of July 5, 2004, Series C No. 109, para. 165. Las Palmeras Case, Judgment of December 6, 2001, Series C No. 90, para. 51; Cantoral Benavides Case, Judgment of August 18, 2000, Series C No. 69, para. 113; and Durand and Ugarte Case, Judgment of August 16, 2002, Series C No. 68, para. 117 8