82 in a democratic State under the rule of law said jurisdiction must have a restrictive and exceptional scope and must be geared to protection of special legal interests, linked to the functions assigned to the military forces by the Law. For this reason, the military must only be tried there for crimes or offenses that by their very nature affect legal interests that pertain 396 directly to the military. 298. The Commission notes that the case file was archived on September 8, 1997, and therefore it will not issue any rulings on this matter. 299. As for the disciplinary proceedings, the Commission has indicated, on repeated occasions through its different mechanisms, that the disciplinary jurisdiction does not constitute a sufficient forum to hear, sanction, and redress the consequences of human rights violations.397 300. Likewise, the Court has also pointed out that the investigation in the disciplinary jurisdiction “tends to protect the administrative function and the correction and control of public officials, so that, in cases of grave human rights violations, it can complement but not substitute completely the function of the criminal jurisdiction.”398 In the present case, this situation did not arise because, on September 2, 2003, the Attorney Assigned to Human Rights confirmed the decision to archive the disciplinary verification pointing out that UNHR “filed proceedings (…) against the leader of the Self-Defense Forces Ramón María Isaza Arango, as the person allegedly responsible for the incidents.” 301. As for the contentious-administrative jurisdiction, the Commission has pointed out that it is a mechanism aimed at supervising the State’s administrative activities and that it only makes it possible to secure compensation for damages caused by the deed or omission of agents of the State.399 The Court has also deemed that: When establishing the international responsibility of the State for the violation of the human rights embodied in Articles 8(1) and 25 of the American Convention, a substantial aspect of the dispute before the Court is not whether judgments were delivered at the national level or whether settlements were reached on the civil or administrative responsibility of a State body with regard to the violations committed to the detriment of the next of kin of the persons 396 I/A Court H.R., Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140, paragraph 189; Case of Palamara Iribarne v. Chile. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2005. Series C No. 137, paragraph 124; Case of the Mapiripán Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134, paragraph 202; and Case of Lori Berenson Mejía v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2004, Series C No. 119, 142. 397 IACHR, Report No. 74/07, Petition 1136-03, Admissibility, José Antonio Romero Cruz and others, v. Colombia, October 15, 2007, paragraph 34; Report No. 31/11, Case No. 12.416, Merits, Santo Domingo Massacre, Colombia, March 24, 2011, paragraph 157; Third Report on the Human Rights Situation in Colombia, OEA/Ser/L/V/III.102 Doc. 9 rev. 1, February 26, 1999, Chapter V, paragraph 3. 398 I/A Court H.R., Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140, paragraph 204. 399 IACHR, Report No. 74/07, Petition 1136-03, Admissibility, José Antonio Romero Cruz and others v. Colombia, October 15, 2007, paragraph 34.