must rule immediately and ex officio that the facts be heard by a natural judge, that is, by the ordinary criminal courts. 343 234. Furthermore, this Court recalls that it has already stated in the case of Radilla Pacheco, and reiterated in the cases of Fernández Ortega and Rosendo Cantú, that it is not necessary to order the amendment of the regulatory provisions included in Article 13 of the Political Constitution of the United Mexican States. Nevertheless, in Chapter IX of this Judgment the Court has stated that Article 57 of the Military Criminal Code is incompatible with the American Convention (supra para. 206). Therefore, this Court reminds the State that it has an obligation to introduce, within a reasonable period of time, the appropriate legislative reforms in order to make the aforementioned provision compatible with international standards in this regard and with the American Convention, under the terms established in this Judgment. 344 235. Finally, as stated in Chapter IX of this Judgment, Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel did not have access to an adequate and effective remedy that would have enabled them to challenge the intervention of the military courts in the proceedings to examine the alleged acts of torture committed against them (supra para. 204). Consequently, as the Court determined in the cases of Fernández Ortega and Rosendo Cantú, Mexico must adopt, also within a reasonable period of time, the appropriate legislative reforms to allow individuals affected by the actions of the military courts to have access to an effective remedy to challenge their jurisdiction. 345 ii) Adapting domestic laws to international standards regarding torture 236. The Commission requested that the Court order the State “to adopt legislative, administrative and any other measures to adapt Mexican legislation and practices to Inter-American standards regarding torture.” In turn, the representatives pointed to its omission in classifying the crime of torture in the state of Guerrero, which, they noted, “is a flagrant violation of Article 6 paragraph two of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture.” In this regard, the Court concluded in a preceding paragraph (supra para. 207) that the arguments put forward on this issue were not a violation of Article 2 of the American Convention, and therefore it is not appropriate to order a measure of reparation in this regard. iii) Adopting a mechanism for an accessible and public register of detainees 237. The Commission requested the “adop[tion of] the necessary measures in order to ensure that all detainees are promptly brought before a judge or any other official with sufficient authority to oversee the lawfulness of the arrest.” 238. The representatives called for “the creation of a public registry of detainees, which should be accessible and immediate,” in all places where “individuals charged with a crime are detained before appearing before the competent court.” Said registry should specify the name of the civil servant in charge of the investigation; 343 Cf. Case of Fernández Ortega et al. v. Mexico, supra note 39, para. 237; and Case of Rosendo Cantú et al. v. Mexico, supra note 30, para. 220. 344 Cf. Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico, supra note 302, para. 341 and 342; Case of Fernández Ortega et al. v. Mexico, supra note 39, paras. 238 and 239; and Case of Rosendo Cantú et al. v. Mexico, supra note 30, paras. 221 and 222. 345 Cf. Case of Fernández Ortega et al. v. Mexico, supra note 39, para. 240; and Case of Rosendo Cantú et al. v. Mexico, supra note 30, para. 223. 86