E/CN.4/1998/38 page 16 extremely limited within legal proceedings, for under article 301 of the draft that party could not oppose rulings and decisions unless they related to claims for compensation. 69. The same sources pointed out that the conditions in which the draft was presented had been substantially modified by the decision of the Constitutional Court on 5 August 1997, which had ruled on a claim of unconstitutionality concerning various articles of the Military Criminal Code. The decision fixed three rules for the application of military criminal law. The first was that such application was restrictive, which meant that it could apply only in crimes committed by members of the public security forces on active service and in connection with their duties. The act had to be part of the lawful activities of the police service or armed forces; therefore, if the intention of the agent was criminal from the outset the case fell to the ordinary courts. The second rule was that certain crimes did not and could not constitute service-related acts and were not covered by military law, for example, crimes against humanity. In those circumstances the case should be assigned to the ordinary courts in view of the total incompatibility between the crime and the tasks of the public security forces under the Constitution. Thirdly, the evidence presented in legal proceedings should fully demonstrate the active service relationship. This meant that, in situations in which there was doubt about the jurisdiction competent to rule on a particular case, the decision should be in favour of the ordinary courts, since it had not been possible to fully demonstrate that the case constituted an exception. 70. The rules fixed by the Constitutional Court were binding on the country's other jurisdictional authorities. Non-governmental sources nonetheless showed concern about their application in this instance. This was due to the fact that, since the ruling, the Government had not made the necessary arrangements for referral to the Attorney-General's Office or to the ordinary courts of cases currently under the military criminal justice system that did not fulfil the conditions for a hearing in the military courts, in conformity with the Constitutional Court's ruling. 71. The Special Rapporteurs recommended the establishment of a mechanism which could contribute to providing justice for past offences. 72. The Government pointed out that it had actively participated in the friendly settlements being reached within the framework of the Inter-American Commission, also mentioning some of the headway made in the Trujillo, Uvos, Caloto and Villatina cases. 73. Non-governmental sources recognized the importance of the investigative commissions mechanism. They noted, however, that progress was minimal in clearing up cases, punishing the guilty and securing social redress for the victims of violence. None of the judicial investigations had been completed. 74. The Rapporteurs recommended taking effective priority measures to disarm and dismantle paramilitary groups. 75. The Government indicated that the activity of private vigilante groups had been rejected by the highest governmental authorities. The Attorney-General's Office had described the fight against impunity for acts