80 277. In the present case, there is no doubt that the arrest and subsequent forced disappearance of Mr. Rosendo Radilla-Pacheco, in which military agents participated (supra para. 150) are not related in any way whatsoever with the military discipline. From those behaviors juridical rights such as life, personal integrity, personal liberty, and the acknowledgment of the juridical personality of Mr. Rosendo Radilla-Pacheco have been affected. Likewise, in a Constitutional State, the commission of acts such as the forced disappearances of persons against civilians by the members of the military can never be considered as a legitimate and acceptable means for compliance with the military mission. It is clear that those behaviors are openly contrary to the duties of respect and protection of human rights and, therefore, are excluded from the competence of the military jurisdiction. 278. From all the aforementioned, it can be concluded that the decision of the First Collegiate Court (supra para. 261) generated the application of a personal jurisdiction that operated without taking into account the nature of the implicated acts, which resulted in Mr. Francisco Quiroz Hermosillo being processed before the military courts until the discontinuance of the proceedings due to his passing away (supra para. 264). 279. Now, the State of Mexico indicated that the decisions issued by military courts are susceptible of being revised by the ordinary authorities through the “figure” of appeal of relief, with which, in its opinion, the guarantee of a competent tribunal is protected in those cases in which the victim of a crime considered of a military nature is a civilian. 280. In this regard, the Court considers it appropriate to underline that criminal proceedings should be considered as a whole throughout their different stages, both the ones that correspond to the first instance and those regarding the ulterior instances. Therefore, the concept of a competent tribunal and the principle of the due process of law are valid throughout these stages and are projected during the different procedural instances.280 281. In the present case, the mere possibility that the decisions issued by military courts can be “revised” by federal authorities does not satisfy the principle of a competent tribunal, since the judge shall be competent sin the first instance. In the present case, the Court has already stated that the military courts are not competent to hear of the arrest and subsequent forced disappearance of Mr. Rosendo Radilla-Pacheco. 282. From the aforementioned, the Court concludes that the State violated the principle of a competent tribunal upon exceeding the sphere of military justice in the present case in violation of the parameters of exceptionality and restrictive nature that characterize the military criminal jurisdiction. In that sense, given that the military courts are not competent, the Tribunal considers that it is not necessary to issue a ruling regarding the alleged lack of independence and impartiality argued by the representatives (supra para. 267). * ** 283. On the other hand, upon analyzing the different arguments offered by the State through which it explains the exercise of military jurisdiction in the present case, the application of Article 57, fraction II, subparagraph a), of the Code of Military Justice in the decision of the First Collegiate Court (supra para. 261) grabs the attention of the Tribunal. Said stipulation refers to the extension of military jurisdiction to cover crimes of the 280 Cf. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. Merits, Reparations, and Costs, supra note 54, para. 161.