87 jurisdiction, acknowledges the right to a competent tribunal. In effect, through this provision, the State Parties to the CIDFP undertake to respect the right to a competent judge to hear the criminal case regarding the crime of forced disappearance, which is a common judge, since, as previously stated, the juridical right protected transcends military interests (supra para. 275). 310. The Court has established that “a reservation that suspends the entire fundamental right whose content is nonrevocable shall be considered as incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention and, therefore, incompatible with the same. The situation could be different if the reservation only restricts certain aspects of the domestic legislation nonrevocable without depriving the right of its basic content.”300 Upon making this determination the Tribunal shall examine if even when the reservation only restricts some aspects of a nonrevocable right, it prevents giving the treaty its full sense and useful effect.301 311. As previously stated, the reservation to Article IX of the CIDFP implies disregard of the human right to a competent tribunal, in the due investigation and eventual punishment of those responsible for the commission of the forced disappearance of persons. The need to guarantee that this type of cases be investigated in an impartial manner before the competent instances pursuant with international obligations, transcends the States’ interests. The eradication of the impunity of grave violations of human rights,302 such as the one that occurred in the present case, has a collective guarantee, reflected in the clear and growing interest of the entire society and all Democratic Constitutional states to strengthen the international protection mechanisms in the field. The Court considers that the right to a competent tribunal, acknowledged in Article IX of this Convention, is indispensable for the achievement of the purposes established therein. 312. Taking into account all the aforementioned, this Tribunal considers that the reservation made by Mexico does not satisfy the first requirement established in Article XIX of the CIDFP, therefore it shall be considered invalid. In this sense, it is evident that the application of the military jurisdiction in the present case, for which the State extended the competence of the military jurisdiction to facts that are not strictly related to military discipline or with juridical acts characteristic of the military realm, is contrary to the 300 Cf. Restrictions to the Death Penalty (Arts. 4(2) and 4(4) American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-3/83, supra note 293, para. 60. 301 Cf. Restrictions to the Death Penalty (Arts. 4(2) and 4(4) American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-3/83, supra note 293, para. 61, and Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, supra note 32, para. 30. 302 Cf. Resolution regarding disappeared persons and assistance to their next of kin, AG/RES. 2513 (XXXIXO/09), approved by the General Assembly of the OAS on June 4, 2009, fourth and sixth operative paragraphs, at http://www.oas.org/dil/esp/AG-RES2513-2009.doc; Resolution regarding disappeared persons and assistance for their next of kin, AG/RES. 2231 (XXXVI-O/06), approved by the General Assembly of the OAS on June 6, 2006, third and seventh operative paragraphs, in http://www.civilsociety.oas.org/General%20Assembly%20Resolutions/Sto%20Domingo/Esp/AG%20RES%202232%20spanish.doc; Resolution on the right to the truth, 2005/66, apprived by the Human Rights Commission of the United Nations on April 20, 2005, second to fourth operative paragraphs, at http://ap.ohchr.org/documents/S/CHR/resolutions/ECN4-RES-2005-66.doc; Resolution on the matter of Forced or Involuntary Disappearances, 59/200, approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations on March 23, 2005, 4th operative paragraph, at http://www.acnur.org/biblioteca/pdf/3758.pdf; Resolution on Forced or Involuntary Disappearances 2004/40, approved by the Human Rights Commission on April 19, 2004, Operative paragraphs 7(b), 7(c), and 7(d), at http://www2.ohchr.org/spanish/issues/disappear/docs/E-CN4-RES-2004-40.doc; Resolution on the matter of forced or involuntary disappearances, 2003/38, approved by the Human Rights Commission on April 23, 2003, Operative paragraphs 5(c), 5(d), and 5(d), at http://www2.ohchr.org/spanish/issues/disappear/docs/E-CN4-RES2003-38.doc