constitute human rights violations, this Court recalls that it has ruled in this regard in relation to Mexico in the Judgment of the case of Radilla Pacheco, a precedent that has been repeated in the cases of Fernández Ortega and Rosendo Cantú. Bearing in mind the foregoing and the points made by the State (supra para. 188), for the purposes of this case, the Court deems sufficient to reiterate that: [i]n 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 tasks characteristic of the military forces. Therefore, the Court has previously stated that only active soldiers shall be prosecuted within the military jurisdiction for the perpetration of crimes or offenses that based on their own nature threaten the juridical rights of the military order itself. 302 Likewise, […] taking into account the nature of the crime and the juridical right damaged, military criminal jurisdiction is not the competent jurisdiction to investigate and, if applicable, prosecute and punish the perpetrators of human rights violations; instead, the processing of those responsible always corresponds to the ordinary justice system. In that sense, the Court, on numerous occasions, has indicated that “[w]hen the military jurisdiction assumes competence over a matter that should be heard by the ordinary jurisdiction, it violates the right to a competent Court and, a fortiori, to due process,” which is, at the same time, intimately related to the right to a fair trial. The judge in charge of hearing a case shall be competent, as well as independent and impartial. 303 Regarding situations that violate human rights of civilians, the military jurisdiction cannot operate under any circumstance. 304 The Court [has] point[ed] out that when the military courts hear of acts that constitute human rights violations against civilians they exercise jurisdiction not only with regard to the defendant, who must necessarily be a person with an active military status, but also with regard to the civilian victim, who has the right to participate in the criminal proceedings, not only for the purposes of the respective reparation of the damage but also to exercise his right to the truth and to justice […]. Thus, the victims of human rights violations and their families have the right to have those violations heard and addressed by a competent Court, according to due process of law and the right to a fair trial. The importance of the passive subject transcends the military sphere of action, since juridical rights associated with the ordinary regimen are involved. 305 198. To summarize, according to this Court’s case law, the military jurisdiction is not competent to investigate and, if applicable, prosecute and punish the perpetrators of alleged human rights violations; instead, those responsible must always be tried by the ordinary justice system. This conclusion applies not only to cases of torture, forced disappearance and rape, but to all human rights violations. 302 Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 23, 2009. Series C Nº 209 para. 272; Case of Fernández Ortega et al. v. Mexico, supra note 39, para. 176; and Case of Rosendo Cantú et al. v. Mexico, supra note 30, para. 160. 303 Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico, supra note 302, para. 273; Case of Fernández Ortega et al. v. Mexico, supra note 39, para. 176; and Case of Rosendo Cantú et al. v. Mexico, supra note 30, para. 160. 304 Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico, supra note 302, para. 274; Case of Fernández Ortega et al. v. Mexico, supra note 39, para. 176; and Case of Rosendo Cantú et al. v. Mexico, supra note 30, para. 160. 305 Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico, supra note 302, para. 275; Case of Fernández Ortega et al. v. Mexico, supra note 39, para. 176; and Case of Rosendo Cantú et al. v. Mexico, supra note 30, para. 160. 75