E/CN.4/1998/38 page 15 organizations acknowledged the importance of this type of measure. Nonetheless, in the dialogue begun with the Government they had declared that these measures should be more far-reaching and more effective. Among the measures suggested were confronting and eradicating illegal paramilitary groups, dismissing those members of the public forces and other State organizations involved in serious human rights violations, and implementing strategies for prosecuting and punishing those responsible for threats and attacks against human rights defenders. 65. The Rapporteurs recommended, with regard to military justice, that a reform of the Code should include the following elements: (a) a clear distinction between those carrying out operational activities and members of the military judiciary, who should not form part of the normal chain of command; (b) reconstitution of the military tribunals with a corps of legally trained judges; (c) ensuring that investigation and prosecution officials were independent of the normal military hierarchy; (d) elimination of the principle of obedience to superior orders in connection with executions, torture and enforced disappearances; (e) involvement of the claimant for criminal indemnification (parte civil); and (f) explicitly excluding from military jurisdiction the crimes of execution, torture and enforced disappearance. Furthermore, the body deciding on conflicts of jurisdiction between the civil and military justice systems should be composed of independent judges. 66. The Government referred to its decision to present to Congress the reform of the Military Criminal Justice System beginning in March 1997. The Government had an official position with regard to the two most relevant points at issue: whether or not to limit the concept of service-related crimes, and whether or not to restrict the concept that obedience to superior orders conferred exemption from responsibility. In connection with the first matter, the Government had opted not to include definitions or regulatory details and to leave it to the discretion of the court to determine whether or not the acts were connected with active service. As for obedience to superior orders, this could only be invoked when the act was the result of a legitimate order and did not infringe fundamental rights. 67. Other important advances had also been achieved such as a clear distinction drawn between those who carried out operational activities and members of the military judiciary, who should not form part of the normal chain of command; the technical training of investigation and trial personnel; the introduction of the indictment system; the involvement of the claimant for indemnification (parte civil) in legal proceedings, and the introduction of a chapter in which the most relevant infringements of international humanitarian law were characterized as offences. 68. Non-governmental sources pointed out that the draft Military Criminal Code submitted by the Government reproduced the content of article 221 of the Constitution and, in connection with serious violations of human rights, excluded application in the military courts. As to obedience to superior orders, it established that an order should be carried out with the due legal formalities and by a competent authority. Nevertheless, it was not explicit about the duty not to carry out express orders which involved violations of human rights. Action by the claimant for indemnification (parte civil) was