77 “perk” for the members of the armed forces, “[b]ut a specialized jurisdiction that hears of the offenses and crimes against military discipline […].” In that sense, it indicated that Article 13 of the Constitution refers to the persons accused of a crime and not to the alleged victims, thus “[w]hen a civilian is the victim of a crime committed by a soldier, the competent authority to prosecute the crime are the military courts […].” Additionally, it indicated that “[b]y exception, when soldiers commit a crime of the common federal order and they are not performing an act of military service, that is[,] they are enjoying time off […] they will not be tried by the military courts, but by civil ones, since the infringement of the juridical rights occurs in detriment of the society in general […].” 269. The State indicated that “[w]hen crimes of a common or federal nature are committed by soldiers, said substantive Codes are applied based on attracting competence in what refers to the crime and the punishment, but the military criminal proceedings are governed by the Code of Military Justice, […] in the terms [of] Article[s] 57 and 58 [of that] military code.” In this sense, it indicated that Article 57 of the Code of Military Justice establishes two assumptions in order for a crime to be considered as committed against military discipline: 1) when it is contemplated in the second book of the Code of Military Justice [regarding the “crimes, offenses, criminals, and punishments”], as long as the active subject in the commission of the crime is a soldier, that is, is active in the Armed Forces; and, 2) when a soldier commits crimes of the common or federal order “[and] any of the criteria included from subparagraph a) to subparagraph d) of fraction II of Article 57 are updated.” Similarly, it stated that “[t]he rulings issued by the military [courts] are susceptible to being reviewed by federal authorities through the figure of appeal of relief,” and that this maintains the guarantee of a competent tribunal in those cases in which the victim of a crime is a civilian, “[s]ince in no way whatsoever, do the rulings of military courts become legally unappealable.” B1. Competent jurisdiction 270. According to the arguments of the Commission, the representatives, and the State it can be concluded that, in the present case, one of the subjects that shall be covered by this Tribunal is the one regarding the application of military jurisdiction to facts such as the arrest and subsequent forced disappearance of Mr. Rosendo Radilla-Pacheco, which, as has been established in this Judgment, constitute violations to the rights acknowledged in Articles 3 (Right to Juridical Personality), 4 (Right to Life), 5 (Right to Humane Treatment), and 7 (Right to Personal Liberty) of the American Convention (supra para. 159). 271. In this regard, the Tribunal observes that, as can be concluded from the facts (supra paras. 260 through 264), on October 27, 2005 the First Collegiate Court decided that the First Military Court was competent to hear the case against Mr. Francisco Quiroz Hermosillo. Additionally, that in its decision, the First Collegiate Court stated that said person was in the position of Lieutenant Colonel of the Infantry of the Mexican Army, attached to the Large Coast of the State of Guerrero in the population of Atoyac de Álvarez, and that he was in charge “[o]f the revision posts the armed institution had at the mentioned locations […].” Likewise, it established, among others, that from Article 13 of the Political Constitution of the United States of Mexico271 (hereinafter, “Constitution”) and from Article 57, fraction II, 271 Article 13 of the Constitution states that: No one can be prosecuted by exclusive laws or special courts. No person or corporation may enjoy jurisdiction or more emoluments than those that are considered compensation for public services and are established by law. The military jurisdiction subsists for the crimes and offenses against military discipline; but military courts may under no conditions and due to no reason whatsoever extend their jurisdiction