78 a) to ensure that any person claiming such remedy shall have his rights determined by the competent authority provided for by the legal system of the state; b) to develop the possibilities of judicial remedy; and c) to ensure that the competent authorities shall enforce such remedies when granted. a) Initial Investigations in the Ordinary Courts; Referral of Investigations to Military Courts and Lack of Jurisdiction of Military Courts to Investigate and Prosecute Serious Human Rights Violations 135. After the complaints filed by the victims' next of kin, the APRODEH (Association for Human Rights) and the Chancellor of the University of La Cantuta, an investigation was undertaken in a regular court in August 1992, specifically by the Octava Fiscalía Provincial en lo Penal (Eighth Provincial Criminal Prosecutor’s Office (supra para. 80(21) to 80(23)). In addition, after illegal common graves were found in Cieneguilla and Huachipa, the Décimo Sexta Fiscalía Provincial Penal de Lima (Sixteenth Provincial Criminal Prosecutor’s Office of Lima) undertook parallel investigations in July 1993 (supra para. 80(30) and 80(31)). During the exhumation and identification activities performed by the Prosecutor’s Office, there were several missteps concerning the identification of other human remains found. Moreover, nothing else was done to find the remains of the other victims. 136. In the first investigation undertaken in the common criminal court, the prosecutor who replaced the appointed prosecutor refrained from continuing to conduct the investigation because the Sala de Guerra of the CSJM (Warfare Division of the Supreme Military Justice Tribunal) "had taken jurisdiction over the same events as those in this complaint.” Such replacements, carried out in the context of a restructuring of the Judicial Branch undertaken from April 1992, described by the Commission for Truth and Reconciliation as a “a blatant case of intrusion and control by the political power,”111 were part of a scheme aimed at preventing alleged perpetrators and instigators from being tried by competent courts, in the context of impunity described above (supra para. 81). 137. The military courts had started to conduct investigations on their own in April 1993, in parallel to those undertaken by the ordinary courts (supra para. 80(42) and 80(43)). As a result, the CSJM (Supreme Council of Military Justice) entered into a “jurisdiction battle” against the ordinary courts, and when the Sala Penal de la Corte Suprema de la República (Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Perú) initially resolved it, the CSJM declared itself in disagreement with the decision to refer the prosecutions against the military officers identified as responsible to the ordinary courts (supra para. 80(48)). In view of the foregoing, the so-called “Congreso Constituyente Democrático” (Democratic Constitutional Congress) passed a law that modified the required majority to settle jurisdiction battles. 111 Cf. Final Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, 2003, Volume III, Chapter 2.6, “Action of the judiciary during the internal armed conflict”, p. 265. In this connection, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the question of the independence of judges and lawyers has expressed his concern that, as a result of the restructuring of the Judiciary, the Executive Branch and high-ranking authorities of the Judiciary summarily removed from office judges and prosecutors in all court tiers and their place “[n]ew judges were appointed on a provisional basis, without prior assessment of their qualifications, by the same commission set up for the removal of the previous magistrates. As a result, by the end of 1993, more than 60 per cent of the judicial posts were occupied by magistrates who had been appointed provisionally).” (Cf. Report from the Special Rapporteur on the question of independence of judges and lawyers, Mr. Param Cumaraswamy. Addendum to the Report of the mission to Perú. E/CN.4/1998/39/Add.1, February 19, 1998, paragraphs 17–20).