E/CN.4/1995/111 page 28 90. Another highly controversial concept is that of an offence committed while on duty, which is used in certain cases to grant jurisdiction to the military courts. Article 221 of the Constitution states that "Offences committed by members of the armed forces on active duty, in connection with that duty, shall be heard by military appeal courts or military tribunals, in accordance with the provisions of the Military Penal Code". This concept has been and is interpreted broadly, to the point of including human rights violations. In addition, when non-military offences occur during military operations, offences against unarmed civilians are dealt with as part of the violation of internal regulations, on the basis of the argument that an act committed while on duty includes anything that a member of the armed forces may do while in uniform. 91. It was also stated that, when a member of the armed forces is involved in an investigation being conducted by the Fiscalía General de la Nación, the military courts demand to be granted jurisdiction; conflicts of jurisdiction, which were formerly settled by the Supreme Court, are settled under the new Constitution by a chamber of the Consejo Superior de la Judicatura, (Superior Council of the Judicature), which is elected by the Congress, with the decision usually being in favour of the military courts. The Fiscal General de la Nación expressed to the Special Rapporteurs his concern about this practice. 92. In connection with this problem, the Procuraduría General de la Nación states in its third report on human rights: "The military criminal courts have shown little effectiveness in trying and convicting members of the State defence and security bodies who are responsible for human rights violations. At the same time, the investigatory difficulties raised for the Procuraduría General de la Nación by proceedings in which the national police and the armed forces are involved cause excessive delays in disciplinary decisions. As noted on earlier occasions, the poorly understood concept of ’esprit de corps’ leads to cover-ups, obstructs investigations, impedes the entire process and ultimately prevents justice from being done. In addition, in more than a few cases, the military criminal courts’ decisions are in open contradiction with those of the Procuraduría General de la Nación, and this robs the disciplinary penalty of much of its value as a deterrent. The monitoring of the military criminal courts by the Public Ministry has not been sufficient to prevent these defects. What is needed is a thorough reorganization of the way in which the members of the armed forces are tried." 27/ The Procuraduría General de la Nación stresses that: "Concepts such as military jurisdiction, act committed while on duty and due obedience should be rethought in the light of the principles and values of the Colombian Constitution, which is based on respect for human rights. It should be made perfectly clear that these categories protect the members of the armed forces only on an exceptional basis. It is a mistake to interpret them by analogy, in such a way as to make them applicable to actions not directly connected with police or military duty." 28/