4 21. The petitioners also point out that the right to life takes into account the use of lethal force by government agents and prohibits the arbitrary deprivation of life. They point out that “State agents may and should resort to the use of force only against individuals who threaten the security of a citizen or of the agents themselves, therefore, the State cannot employ force against civilians who do not constitute such a real and specific threat.” The petitioners argue that the victims did not represent any danger because they were unarmed and defenseless. They add that, although the troops knew that the truck was carrying persons, they continued to fire at the rear end of the truck for a prolonged period of time, and they deliberately caused the accident, although doing so would “likely” endanger the lives of the individuals.” Furthermore, the petitioners argue that, after the truck overturned “the troops continued to fire at the victims who were terrified and trying to flee the place.” The petitioners conclude that those actions constituted a disproportionate, unreasonable and unjustified use force that resulted in 7 dead and 13 injured. 22. With regard to Article 5 of the American Convention, the petitioners allege that the State violated the right to physical integrity of Honorio Winique, Renaud Timat, Joseph Pierre, Celafoi Pierre, Roland Israel, Rose Marie Dol, Josué Maxime, Cecilia Petithomme/Estilien, Sonide Nora, Alphonse Oremis, Michel Florantin and Silvie Thermeus, who were wounded by bullets and suffered injuries as a result of the accident involving the truck in which they were traveling. 23. Furthermore, the petitioners allege that the State caused harm to the moral and psychological integrity of the survivors and their relatives. In that regard, the petitioners point out that the troops, “forced [the] survivors to pick up, carry the bodies and place them inside the ambulances,” without taking into consideration that they were either in a state of shock or injured and that the dead were their companions, friends and even their relatives. The petitioners allege that the survivors who were transported to detention centers were threatened by the troops with forced labor and jail if they didn’t pay for their release. The petitioners also allege that the decision by the State to bury the remains together with the victims of the massacre in a common grave did not respect the moral and psychological integrity of their relatives who, in addition, had to assume responsibility for the children left behind by the deceased. 24. With regard to Article 7 of the Convention, the petitioners allege that the State violated the right to liberty of the individuals detained due to the fact that some of the survivors were taken and arbitrarily held in the Montecristi and Dajabón detention centers, without being told the reason for their detention, without being asked for identification, and without being taken before a judge or competent judicial authority. Nor were they allowed to file judicial recourse to challenge the legality of the arrest. 25. The petitioners also allege that the State violated the rights recognized in Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention with regard to the obligation to respect the rights enshrined in Article 1(1). They allege that by allowing the military tribunal to have jurisdiction to hear the facts and not allowing the proceedings to take place within the ordinary jurisdiction, the State violated the victims’ right to judicial protection and to due process. They point out that relatives sought to file proper legal recourse before civilian judges. However, the coexistence of military and ordinary proceedings, in addition to the unjustified delay in ruling on the appeal to resolve the conflict of jurisdictions, prevented the relatives from having access to simple, prompt, adequate and effective recourse to competent, independent and impartial judges and tribunals. 26. The petitioners point out that the relatives filed an appeal with the Supreme Court of Justice in March 2003, requesting that the proceeding in the military tribunal be transferred to ordinary jurisdiction but, the petitioners maintain, the relatives were never notified of the January 2005 ruling in favor of military jurisdiction and only learned about the decision within the framework of lodging the complaint with the IACHR. The petitioners allege that the delay in the decision and the lack of notification demonstrate the irregularity and ineffectiveness of the domestic judicial system. 27. The petitioners argue that when the “State allows entities that are potentially implicated to carry out investigations, independence and impartiality are clearly compromised; that Military Tribunals,