domestic legislation that makes reference to the duty to investigate certain unlawful conducts ex officio, and from the norms that allow the victims or their family members to present a complaint such that they may participate in the criminal proceedings in order to establish the truth of the events.444 381. The Court stresses that after the rescue operation, no consideration was given to the hypothesis of extrajudicial executions, and therefore, the State was not under obligation at that time to undertake such investigations. The State was under obligation, however, to conduct an investigation into the use of lethal force with the minimum guarantees of diligence (supra paras. 350 and 369). 382. The Court does understand that the State received notice of the possible extrajudicial execution of these persons from the newspaper report printed in the El Comercio newspaper on December 18, 2000, headlined “MRTA members captured alive” (supra para. 174). Moreover, in December, 2000 and January, 2001, several family members lodged complaints, after which the State undertook an investigation into the incident, and the public prosecutor filed charges based on the outcome of the investigation (supra paras. 174 to 182). 383. Therefore, as of at least December 18, 2000, the State needed to initiate ex officio a conscientious, impartial, effective investigation into the alleged extrajudicial executions. The Court deems that the time elapsed between the publication of the news story, the State’s receiving complaints filed by family members, and the beginning of the police inquiry is reasonable, and therefore finds that the State did not violate its duty to initiate an ex officio investigation into this matter. D. The military courts’ lack of jurisdiction to hold trial on the alleged extrajudicial executions of Herma Luz Meléndez Cueva and Víctor Salomón Peceros Pedraza Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 384. The Commission recalled that: (i) the prosecutor general opened an inquiry in May, 2002 against several of the commandos who took part in the operation as alleged principals, and against several alleged abettors; (ii) days later, the military courts opened an investigation of all the commandos who took part in the operation, and (iii) on a motion by the military courts, the Supreme Court ruled on the jurisdictional dispute, finding that military personnel who had taken part in the commando group should be tried by the military courts, and the rest, by the ordinary courts. The Commission pointed out that “the Supreme Court based its decision on the fact that the incidents had occurred in a ‘clear military confrontation’, that the commandos were serving in a military operation in a state of emergency, in line with a principle enshrined in the Constitution, and that the members of the MRTA ‘were acting as an armed group that belonged to a terrorist organization;’ therefore, they could not be considered civilians,” and any crimes committed should be heard by the military courts. The Commission noted, however, that, “although certain behaviors displayed by the commandos during the operation […] could ultimately have been heard by the military courts, the extrajudicial executions, held by the Supreme Court itself to be serious human rights violations, should have been fully investigated in the ordinary jurisdiction.” Cf. Case of García Prieto et al. v. El Salvador. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2007. Series C No. 168, para. 104, and Case of Garibaldi v. Brazil. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 23, 2009. Series C No. 203, para. 118. 444