199. The use of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment against a person by military officers is an action that is in no way related to the military discipline or mission. On the contrary, the alleged acts committed by military officers against Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel affected juridical rights protected under domestic criminal law and the American Convention, such as the personal integrity and dignity of the victims. Clearly, such conduct is openly contrary to the duties to respect and protect human rights and, therefore, is excluded from the competence of the military jurisdiction. Based on the foregoing considerations, the Court concludes that the intervention of the military courts in the preliminary investigation of torture was contrary to the parameters of exceptionality and restriction characteristic of such courts and entailed the application of a personal jurisdiction that was exercised without taking into account the nature of the acts involved. 306 200. This conclusion is valid in the present case, even though the matter did not go beyond the investigative stage at the Office of the Public Prosecutor for Military Justice. As is clear from the abovementioned criteria, the incompatibility between the American Convention and h the intervention of military courts in these types of cases not only applies to act of prosecuting by a court, but mainly to the investigation itself, given that its actions constitute the starting point and the necessary premise for the subsequent intervention of an non-competent Court. 307 201. As to the State’s arguments that any shortcomings associated with the intervention of the military criminal courts would be remedied by fact that in the investigation against Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel conducted by the ordinary court, the allegations of torture were heard in order to decide whether certain evidence should be excluded, it is clear that the sole objective of said proceeding was not to investigate, prosecute and, if applicable, punish the alleged responsible for torture. Therefore, it is not possible to remedy or confirm the effects of a judicial investigation launched in light of the specific complaint regarding torture or mistreatment, through decisions made within the proceeding, the purpose of which was not to shed light on facts but, on the contrary, to investigate the petitioners. Accordingly, the Court concludes that the State violated the right to a fair trial [judicial guarantess] enshrined in Article 8(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel. As it has held in previous cases, 308 based on the conclusion that the military criminal courts were not competent, the Court considers that it is not necessary to rule on other arguments regarding the independence or impartiality of the military courts or the possible violation, based on the same facts, of other Inter-American treaties. 3. Effective legal remedy in the military criminal justice system 202. With regard to the alleged absence of an effective remedy to contest the military jurisdiction, the Court has stated that Article 25(1) of the Convention establishes the duty of the States Parties to ensure to all persons subject to their 306 Cf. Case of Fernández Ortega et al. v. Mexico, supra note 39, para. 177; and Case of Rosendo Cantú et al. v. Mexico, supra note 30, para. 161. 307 Cf. Case of Fernández Ortega et al. v. Mexico, supra note 39, para. 177; and Case of Rosendo Cantú et al. v. Mexico, supra note 30, para. 161. 308 Cf. Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru, supra note 272, para. 115; Case of Fernández Ortega et al. v. Mexico, supra note 39, para. 177; and Case of Rosendo Cantú et al. v. Mexico, supra note 30, para. 161. 76