56 violated the rights contained in Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, and also in Articles 1, 6, and 8 of the Convention Against Torture, and Article 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará. 174. In the response to the application, the State, among other arguments, affirmed that the guarantee of a competent, independent, and impartial judge had not been breached, because the actions taken to that date corresponded to ministerial [investigative] authorities. Consequently, the Court has been asked to penalize the expectation of a violation that did not arise from an action that had taken place and, in particular, that had prejudiced Mrs. Fernández Ortega, given that she “has not been subjected to the military jurisdiction, and her complaint has not been heard by a military court.” In addition, Mexico indicated that “[t]he development of the investigation has been a central element for determining jurisdiction. In other words, the investigation was initiated by civil authorities before whom the complaint was filed. When the participation of members of the armed forces was indicated, the investigation was transferred to the Military Public Prosecutor’s Office.” The alternation between the civil and military justice system at different times during the proceeding was due to the alleged victim’s failure to collaborate, which prevented the investigation from advancing. Once Mrs. Fernández Ortega decided to come forward to take part in the preparation of the artist’s sketch and the identification in the album of photographs, and “she identified those allegedly responsible” military personnel, the civil justice system once again transferred the case file to the Military Public Prosecutor’s Office. Following the last rejection of competence by the Office of the Attorney General for Justice of the state of Guerrero on March 13, 2009, the investigation of the facts was carried out by a special agency of the Office of the Military Attorney General for Justice, which has taken different measures that it is hoped will achieve concrete results with regard to the alleged facts in this case. Accordingly, it asked the Court to declare the inexistence of violations of Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention, to the detriment of Mrs. Fernández Ortega. Subsequently, during the public hearing, the State affirmed that it “would not present any arguments with regard to the exercise of the military justice system in relation to jurisdictional competences in this case, because the Court has already made a final ruling on this issue in its Judgment in the case of […] Radilla [Pacheco], a Judgment that the Mexican State is in the process of complying with.” (supra para. 17) * * * 175. First, with regard to the State’s argument that the rights to judicial guarantees and to judicial protection have not been violated because the investigations remain at the ministerial [investigative] stage, the Court recalls its jurisprudence establishing that the guarantees under Article 8(1) of the Convention do not apply merely to judges and trial courts or judicial proceedings.194 In particular, in relation to the investigations conducted by the Public Prosecutor’s Office, the Court has established that, depending on the circumstances of the case, it may have to examine the measures that relate to and constitute the grounds for judicial proceedings, particularly the investigation procedure, the results of which the opening and progress of said proceedings depend.195 Accordingly, the Court will 194 Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Perú. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of February 6, 2001. Series C No. 74, para. 105; Juridical Condition and Rights of the Undocumented Migrants. Advisory Opinion OC-18/03 September 17, 2003. Series A No. 18, para. 124, and Case of Claude Reyes et al., v. Chile. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 19, 2006. Series C No. 151, para. 118. 195 Cf. Case of de los “Street Children” (Villagrán-Morales et al.), supra note 109, para. 222; Case of Tristán Donoso, supra note 117, para. 145, and Case of Garibaldi v. Brazil. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 23, 2009. Series C No. 203, para. 120.