81 ordinary jurisdiction when they are “[c]omitted by soldiers when they are active or based on acts of the same.” (supra para. 272) 284. In this regard, the Tribunal points out that even though different legislations establish the competence of military jurisdiction on crimes whose origin is within the ordinary jurisdiction when they are committed by active soldiers, it is necessary to clearly establish the direct and proximal relationship with the military function or with the infringement of juridical rights characteristic of the military order. 285. During the public hearing (supra para. 9) the Tribunal requested that the State indicate if there is a jurisprudential development at a domestic level that allows a differentiation between the acts considered committed “in service or based on acts of the same.” In this regard, in its final written arguments the State of Mexico made reference to different jurisprudential criteria that upon being read, however, do not offer any clarification whatsoever regarding the request made by the Court. Instead, those jurisprudential criteria reiterate the content of Article 57 of the Code of Military Justice without clarifying it.281 286. The Court considers that Article 57, fraction II, subparagraph a) of the Code of Military Justice is an ample and imprecise provision that prevents the determination of the strict connection of the crime of the ordinary jurisdiction with the military jurisdiction objectively assessed. The possibility that the military courts prosecute any soldier who is accused of an ordinary crime, for the mere fact of being in service, implies that the jurisdiction is granted due to the mere circumstance of being a soldier. In that sense, even when the crime is committed by soldiers while they are still in service or based on acts of the same, this is not enough for their knowledge to correspond to the military criminal justice. 287. Based on the aforementioned, it is possible to consider that the stipulation under study operates as a rule and not as an exception, a necessary characteristic of military jurisdiction for it to comply with the standards established by this Court.282 281 Cf. Final written arguments presented by the State (dossier of merits, volume IX, folios 2837 through 2847). The State made reference to the following jurisprudential criteria: 1) “Army, members of the”. Registry No.: 904,118. Jurisprudence. Subject(s): Criminal. Fifth Period. Instance: First Chamber. Source: Appendix 2000. Volume: Volume II, Criminal, Jurisprudence SCJN. Thesis: 137. Page: 95; 2) “Military jurisdiction, competence of the”. Registry No.: 918,432. Jurisprudence. Subject(s): Criminal. Fifth Period. Instance: Full. Source: Appendix 2000. Volume: VII, Conflicts of Competence, Jurisprudence. Thesis: 30. Page: 41; 3) “Soldiers on duty, crimes committed by. Competence of military jurisdiction”. Registry No.: 918,435. Jurisprudence. Subject(s): Criminal. Sixth Period. Instance: Full. Source: Appendix 2000. Volume: VII, Conflicts of Competence, Jurisprudence. Thesis: 33. Page: 47; 4) “Crimes against military discipline”. Jurisprudence Thesis 148/2005. Approved by the First Chamber [of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation], in session held on October twenty-six two thousand five; 5) “Essentially military crime, murder committed by a soldier during acts of service.” Registry No.: 815,198. Isolated thesis. Subject(s): Criminal. Fifth Period. Instance: Full. Source: Reports. Report 1949. Thesis: Page. 110; 6) “Soldiers, crimes committed by, against the discipline. Competence.” Registry No.: 235,610. Isolated thesis. Subject(s): Criminal. Seventh Period. Instance: First Chamber. Source: Weekly Judicial Publication of the Federation. Second Part. Thesis: 75. Page: 34; 7) ��Health, crime against. Soldiers as active subjects. Lack of competence of the military jurisdiction, if they are not in service”. Registry No.: 234,262. Isolated thesis. Subject(s): Criminal. Seventh Period. Instance: First Chamber. Source: Weekly Judicial Publication of the Federation. 181-186 Second Part. Thesis: Page: 101; 8) “Service. Soldiers in”. Registry No.: 206,199. Isolated thesis. Subject(s): Criminal. Eighth Period. Instance: First Chamber. Source: Weekly Judicial Publication of the Federation. VII, June 1991. Thesis: 1a. XIV/91. Page: 76, and 9) “Military Jurisdiction. Is an Exception”. Registry No.: 234,996. Isolated thesis. Subject(s): Criminal. Seventh Period. Instance: First Chamber. Source: Weekly Judicial Publication of the Federation. 115-120 Second Part. Thesis: Page 51. 282 Cf. Case of Las Palmeras v. Colombia, supra note 274, para. 51; Case of La Cantuta v. Peru, supra note 51, para. 142, and Case of the Massacre of La Rochela v. Colombia, supra note 83, para. 200.