57 rule on the investigation conducted in this case and will determine whether the rights to judicial guarantees and judicial protection and other Inter-American norms have been violated in this domestic procedure. 176. In particular, with regard to the intervention of the military jurisdiction to examine acts that constitute violations of human rights, this Court recalls that, recently, it has ruled with regard to Mexico, in the case of Radilla Pacheco. Taking this into account, together with the arguments of the State (supra para. 17), for the effects of this case, the Court finds it sufficient to reiterate that: In a democratic State of law, the military criminal jurisdiction shall have a restrictive and exceptional scope and be directed toward the protection of special juridical interests, related to the functions characteristic of the military forces. Therefore, the Court has stated previously that only soldiers in active service shall be prosecuted under the military jurisdiction for the commission of crimes or offenses that, by their nature, threaten the juridical rights of the military system.196 Furthermore, [...] taking into account the nature of the crime and the juridical right damaged, the military criminal jurisdiction is not the competent jurisdiction to investigate and, if applicable, prosecute and punish the authors of violations of human rights; rather the processing of those responsible always corresponds to the ordinary forum. In this regard, the Court has indicated on numerous occasions that “[w]hen the military jurisdiction assumes competence for a matter that should be heard by the ordinary jurisdiction, it is violating the right to a hearing by an ordinary court previously established by law and, a fortiori, to due process,” which, in turn, is closely related to access to justice. The judge in charge of hearing a case shall be competent, as well as independent, and impartial.197 In situations that violate the human rights of civilians, the military jurisdiction may not operate under any circumstance.198 The Court has emphasized that when the military courts hear cases involving acts that constitute violations of the human rights of civilians, they exercise jurisdiction not only with regard to the accused, who must necessarily be someone on active military duty, but also with regard to the civilian victim, who has the right to participate in the criminal proceedings not only for the effects of the corresponding reparation of the damage but also to exercise his or her rights to the truth and to justice […]. In this regard, the victims of human right violations and their next of kin have the right to these violations being heard and decided by a competent tribunal, pursuant to due process and access to justice. The importance of the passive subject transcends the military sphere, because juridical rights that belong to the ordinary forum are involved.199 177. In no case does the rape of someone by military personnel bear a relationship to the military discipline or mission. To the contrary, the offense committed by military personnel against Mrs. Fernández Ortega affected juridical rights protected by domestic criminal law and the American Convention, such as the victim’s personal integrity and dignity. It is evident that such conduct is openly contrary to the obligations to respect and to protect human rights and, consequently, is excluded from the competence of the military jurisdiction. Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes that the intervention of the military justice system in the preliminary investigation of the rape was contrary to the parameters concerning the exceptional and restrictive nature of that system and involved the application of the military jurisdiction that functioned without taking into account the nature of the acts involved. This conclusion is valid in the present case, even though the incident is only at the investigation stage by the Military Public Prosecutor’s Office. As revealed by the criteria indicated above, the incompatibility of the American Convention with the intervention of the military justice system in 196 Case of Radilla Pacheco, supra note 33, para. 272. 197 Case of Radilla Pacheco, supra note 33, para. 273. 198 Case of Radilla Pacheco, supra note 33, para. 274. 199 Case of Radilla Pacheco, supra note 33, para. 275.