It held that there are acts, such as crimes against humanity, that are “so flagrantly at odds with the constitutional function of the [military and police forces] that their commission alone breaks any functional link between the agent and the service” regardless of the context in which they were committed and that, thus, must be tried by a court of general jurisdiction.74 This reflected the court's earlier judgement that international obligations prevented the concept of due obedience from being interpreted so as to extinguish criminal liability for human rights violations committed by soldiers.
ورأت أن هناك أعمالا، مثل الجرائم المرتكبة ضد الإنسانية، ”تتناقض بشكل صارخ مع المهمة الدستورية للقوات العسكرية وقوات الشرطة مما يجعل ارتكابها وحدها يقطع أي صلة وظيفية بين الموظف والخدمة“ بغض النظر عن السياق الذي ارتكبت فيه وبالتالي، يجب أن يحاكم من قبل محكمة ذات اختصاص عام(74).