3 III. POSITION OF THE PARTIES A. Position of the Petitioners 15. The petitioners allege that the Dominican State is responsible for violating Articles 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 24 and 25 of the American Convention, for the massacre of seven persons, and for injuries to the physical, psychic and moral integrity of the survivors and the relatives of the victims. The petitioners allege, that the bases for those violations can be found on the events that transpired on June 18, 2000, on the Botoncillo-Copey highway which were perpetrated by the Dominican Republic Armed Forces through the pursuit, the resulting accident caused involving the vehicle in which the victims traveled, and the subsequent extrajudicial execution of several victims. Those facts have been called “the Guayubín Massacre.” The petitioners also allege the impunity of the proceedings carried out before the Military Tribunal and the impossibility of the victims to have access to ordinary criminal jurisdiction. Lastly, the petitioners allege that the survivors were expelled from the country without due judicial guarantees. 16. The petitioners allege that Jacqueline Maxime, Fritz Alce (Gemilord), Roselene Theremeus, Ilfaudia Dorzema, Máximo Rubén de Jesús Espinal, Pardis Fortilus and Nadege Dorzema lost their lives. Joseph Pierre, Selafoi Pierre, Silvie Thermeus, Roland Israel, Rose Marie Dol, Josué Maxime, Michel Florantin, Cecilia Petithomme/Estilien, Sonide Nora, Alphonse Oremis, Renaud Timat, Honorio Winique, Jospeh Devraine, Maudiré Felizor, Noclair Florvilien, Rose Marie Petit-Homme-Estilien, Joseph Dol, Sylvie Felizor, as well as five persons “whose names are unknown,” suffered harm to their personal integrity. The petitioners also considered the relatives of the victims to be victims themselves. 17. The petitioners allege that in the early morning hours of June 18, 2000, the truck transporting Haitian nationals reached the checkpoint located at “Botoncillo”, Municipality of Guayubín, in the Dominican Republic. At that location, members of the Border Intelligence Operations Department of the Armed Forces, who were patrolling and inspecting vehicles, signaled the truck to stop, a signal ignored by the driver of the truck who continued on his way. Consequently, the petitioners allege, the troops began pursuing the truck and firing at it indiscriminately. The petitioners say that, according to the testimony of witnesses, the troops could see that there were persons inside the truck. They add that after the truck overturned while on a curve near the locality of “El Copey”, the Dominican troops continued to fire at the alleged victims who, terrified, were trying to flee the scene. As a consequence of those actions, six Haitians and one Dominican lost their lives, and several Haitians were injured. 18. The petitioners allege that the State failed to comply with the obligation established in Article 2 of the American Convention, in connection to Articles 8, 25 and 1(1) of the same instrument, by not revoking domestic laws that violated the provisions of the Convention. The petitioners point out that domestic legislation grants jurisdiction to military tribunals to hear cases of human rights violations perpetrated by the armed forces, which was recognized by the State and confirmed by the Supreme Court of Justice when it decided the issue of competence by ruling in favor of the Military Tribunal as having jurisdiction to hear the facts of the massacre. The petitioners argue that the existence of laws that grant jurisdiction to military tribunals to hear cases of human rights violations committed by its agents, affect the victim’s right to justice and to have access to an independent and impartial court. . 19. In addition, the petitioners allege that the judicial authorities, based on the jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court, failed to ensure that the domestic legislation “did not contravene the provisions of the Convention.” In the present case, the petitioners argue that the Supreme Court of Justice violated the Convention and contravened inter-American jurisprudence when it granted jurisdiction to military tribunals. 20. The petitioners argue that the State violated Article 4 of the American Convention when members of the armed forces arbitrarily deprived Jacqueline Maxime, Fritz Alce (alias Gemilord), Pardis Fortilus, Roselene Theremeus, Ilfaudia Dorzema, Nadege Dorzema, and Máximo Rubén Espinal of life, by pursuing, opening fire on, and forcing the truck that transported them into an accident and executing some of the survivors.