82 jurisdiction over ordinary crimes rather than the categorization of a military member. Said articles address the concept of “military” to the purpose of classifying the military criminal offenses included in the Code, and do not affect the general provision contained in Article 6 thereof; d) According to the Prosecutor of the Court of Appeals of Punta Arenas, “civil servants who serve in the Armed Forces in general, and in the Chilean Navy in particular, including those who have filed a retirement application as well as those who are “Civilian Contract Personnel,” have “military status.” The above Prosecutor concluded that Mr. Palamara-Iribarne as Lieutenant Commander pending retirement from active duty and hired as a Civilian Contract Employee under the employment system of the Chilean Navy had military status and, therefore, was subject to the discipline thereof. Furthermore, as a military member he was under the “jurisdiction of military courts;” and e) The Commission did not endorse any of the allegations regarding the military status of the alleged victim. “Its silence and lack of recommendations in this regard are a clear message about the irrelevancy of said allegations.” Considerations of the Court: 120. The Court has established that the alleged victims or the representatives thereof may invoke any rights other than those asserted in the application filed by the Commission, as long as they are based on the facts alleged therein.189 121. In similar cases, the Court has found that “in order to clarify whether the State has violated its international obligations owing to the acts of its judicial organs, the Court may face the need to examine the related domestic proceedings.”190 Adhering to precedent, the Court will consider all domestic proceedings which are relevant to the instant case, in order to make an informed determination as to whether the above-mentioned provisions of the Convention regarding due process and judicial protection have been violated. To that end, the Court will particularly take into consideration that the facts described in the instant case occurred mainly in the context of the Chilean military jurisdiction in “peacetime,” and were the grounds for the two criminal proceedings brought against Mr. Palamara-Iribarne, one for the criminal offenses of disobedience and breach of military duties and the other for the criminal offense of contempt of authority. 122. The Court bears in mind that in the last years Chile has implemented a deep reform of the criminal justice, aimed at introducing the guarantees of due process in criminal proceedings in order to shift from a written inquisitorial procedural system to an accusatory procedural system which rests on the guarantee of being based on oral procedures. Notwithstanding, the military jurisdiction has been excluded from 189 Cf. Case of Acosta-Calderón. Judgment of June 24, 2005. Series C No. 129, para. 142; Case of YATAMA, supra note 5, para. 183; and Case of Fermín- Ramírez. Judgment of June 20, 2005. Series C No. 126, para. 88. 190 Cf. 78; Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre” supra note 1, para. 198; Case of the Moiwana Community, supra note 185, para. 143; and Case of the Serrano-Cruz Sisters, supra note 5, para. 57.