58 this type of case does not refer merely to the act of prosecution, which is the responsibility of a court, but essentially to the investigation itself, because this procedure constitutes the beginning and the necessary grounds for the subsequent intervention of an incompetent court. Based on the above, the Court finds that the State violated the rights to judicial guarantees and to judicial protection established in Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Mrs. Fernández Ortega. As in previous cases,200 when it has found that the military criminal jurisdiction is not competent, the Court considers that it is not necessary to rule on the other arguments concerning the independence and impartiality of the military justice system or the possible violation, based on the same facts, under other Inter-American instruments. * * * 178. Moreover, the Court observes that the intervention of the military justice system was based on Article 57(II)(a) of the Code of Military Justice (supra para. 162).201 In this regard, the Court reiterates that this provision: is a wide-ranging and imprecise provision that prevents determination of the exact connection between a crime that falls under the ordinary jurisdiction and military service objectively assessed. The possibility that the military courts may try a soldier accused of an ordinary crime, merely because he is on active service, implies that jurisdiction is awarded merely because he is a soldier. Thus, even if the crime is committed by soldiers while they are still on active service, or based on service-related acts, this is not enough for such crimes to be heard by the military criminal justice system.202 179. In the case of Radilla Pacheco, this Court found that the provision contained in said Article 57 functions as a rule and not as an exception, an indispensable characteristic of the military jurisdiction in order for it to conform to the standards established by this Court.203 The Court recalls that Article 2 of the American Convention establishes the general obligation of each State Party to adapt its domestic law to the Convention’s provisions in order to guarantee the rights that it establishes, which implies that the measures under domestic law must be effective (the effet utile principle).204 Consequently, the Court finds that the State failed to comply with the obligation contained in Article 2 of the American Convention, in connection with Articles 8 and 25 thereof, by extending the competence of the military justice system to crimes that have no precise connection to the military discipline or to juridical rights inherent in the military forum. 200 Cf. Case of Cantoral Benavides, supra note 111, para. 115, and Case of Usón Ramírez v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2009. Series C No. 207, para. 124. 201 Article 57(II)(a) of the Code of Military Justice, in what is relevant, states: The following are crimes against military order: II.- Those of the common or federal jurisdiction, when the commission has involved any of the circumstances hereby stated: a) when committed by military personnel while on duty or as a result of acts of the same[.] 202 Cf. Case of Radilla Pacheco, supra note 33, para. 286. 203 Cf. Case of Durand and Ugarte v. Perú. Merits. Judgment of August 16, 2000. Series C No. 68, para. 117; Case of the Rochela Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C No. 163, para. 200, and Case of Radilla Pacheco, supra note 33, para. 287. 204 Cf. Case of Garrido y Baigorria v. Argentina. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 27, 1998. Series C No. 39, para. 68; Case of the Dos Erres Massacre, supra note 20, para. 122, and Case of Chitay Nech et al., supra note 18, para. 213.