A/HRC/4/48 page 30 D. Right to due process 27. As in previous years, in 2006 the OHCHR Office learned of cases of violation of the right to due process through non-observance of the principles and standards of judicial independence and the presumption of innocence, and through the obstruction of justice. 28. In several of the cases reported to the Office, the authorities in charge of the military criminal courts undertook the task of investigating punishable conduct when in fact this investigation should have been undertaken by the ordinary courts. 29. On 14 June, the Ministry of Defence and the Attorney-General published a joint instruction in which they ordered that investigations should only be undertaken by the military criminal courts when the Attorney-General’s Office has determined that there are in the case factors of a subjective and functional nature which warrant recognition of the jurisdiction prescribed by the Constitution for members of the security forces on active service. 30. However, the Office has obtained evidence to show that this instruction has not always been complied with, in some cases out of ignorance of its provisions and in others out of a deliberate refusal to observe its requirements. On a date later than 14 June, the military courts assumed jurisdiction for acts which, in the light of international principles and their own constitutional jurisprudence, cannot be considered as “offences committed in the course of duty”. Such a case occurred on 19 August in Saravena (Arauca), when a murder was attributed to members of No. 18 Mechanized Cavalry Group. Similarly, on 18 June in San Vicente de Caguán (Caquetá), another murder was attributed to members of No. 6 Mobile Brigade. 31. On some occasions the Attorney-General’s Office began an immediate investigation of acts which constituted extrajudicial executions attributed to members of the security forces. This occurred in the case of executions perpetrated in Saravena (Arauca) on 6 March, and in Barbacoas (Nariño) on 7 November. In Putumayo, the Attorney-General’s Office handled all proceedings for extrajudicial execution perpetrated in that department during 2006. 32. The Attorney-General’s Office also brought conflicts of competence before the Higher Council of the Judiciary to ensure that it handled proceedings initiated by the military courts. It did this in the case of a civilian who, on 11 March in the rural area of Cali, was killed by soldiers from the “Rodrigo Lloreda” Battalion, and in that of a 19-year-old man whose death in Ipiales on 23 April occurred as a result of actions attributed to members of the “José María Cabal” Battalion. 33. However, the OHCHR Office learned of other cases where prosecutors transmitted to the military criminal courts proceedings already initiated for murders amounting to extrajudicial executions. This happened in the case of a person killed by soldiers in Copacabana (Antioquia) on 16 January who was later reported as shot in combat, and a person killed in El Dovio (Valle) on 24 July. 34. The Office also learned of cases in which the course of justice was obstructed through pressure, threats or attacks against witnesses and judicial officials. In Argelia (Antioquia) on 15 February, a person who witnessed an extrajudicial execution was allegedly forced to sign a