39 Furthermore, if violations of human rights are not seriously investigated, they would be, in a sense, aided by law enforcement which would compromise the international responsibility of the State. 162. Thus, as evidenced in the present case in which deaths and serious injuries occurred as a result of the excessive use of force, contrary to its international obligations 177 the State has not carried out a serious, independent, impartial and effective investigation, it has not provided a satisfactory and compelling explanation of the facts, and it has not provided evidence to discredit the allegations regarding its responsibility. On the contrary, the IACHR notes that the State remitted the case to the military jurisdiction where the relatives of the victims executed were denied access, where the majority of the survivors were not asked to provide testimony, and where the military personnel involved were acquitted and the offenses remain unpunished. 163. Based on the preceding, the Commission considers that in the instant case, the Dominican State exceeded the scope of military jurisdiction in violation of the parameters of a special and restricted jurisdiction that characterize military criminal jurisdiction and extended the competence of the military courts to offenses that bear no direct relation to military discipline or to the legal rights of the military forces; it set free the military servicemen involved in the incidents and prevented the relatives of the victims from having access to justice. Therefore, the Commission concludes that the Dominican Republic violated the rights enshrined in Articles 8.1 and 25 of the American Convention in connection to Article 1(1) of the same instrument, to the detriment of the relatives of the victims executed who are identified in paragraph 103. 3. Failure to comply with the obligation to adopt domestic remedies (Article 2 of the American Convention), in connection to Articles 8 and 25 of the same instrument. 164. Article 2 of the American Convention establishes the general obligation of each State Party to adopt the necessary domestic legislative or other measures in accordance with the provisions of the Convention in order to guarantee the rights recognized by it, which implies that the domestic remedies 178 must be effective (principle of effet utile) . 165. The Commission considers that Article 3 of the Armed Forces Code of Justice, which in relevant part establishes that “military courts are competent to hear offenses committed by military personnel in the exercise of their duties, regardless of where the offenses were committed” operates as a 179 rule rather than an exception, of military jurisdiction. . Furthermore, the IACHR observes that the content of that article is broad and prevents the determination of the link between offenses in the civil jurisdiction and those in the military jurisdiction. The Commission specifically emphasizes the section of the article that establishes that all “other crimes, offenses or violations committed by military or attached personnel shall be tried in ordinary courts, in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Criminal Code, and general criminal laws.” 166. In that regard, the Inter-American Court has established that: 177 IA Court H.R., Case Zambrano Vélez et al vs. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 166. Par. 108 and 88; IA Court H.R. Case Montero Aranguren et al (Retén de Catia), Judgment of July 5, 2006. Series C No. 150. Par. 80; IA Court H.R. Case Baldeón García. Judgment of April 6, 2006. Series C No. 147. Par. 120. IA Court H.R., Case Servellón García et al vs. Honduras. Judgment of September 21, 2006. Series C No. 152, par. 123; IA Court HR,Case Baldeón García vs. Peru. Judgment of April 6, 2006. Series C No. 147, par. 91; IA Court H.R., Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre vs. Colombia. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140, par. 145; IA Court H.R. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre” vs. Colombia. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134, pars. 137 and 232. IA Court H.R., Case Juan Humberto Sánchez vs. Honduras. Judgment of June 7, 2003. Series C No. 99, par. 112. Also see Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison vs. Peru. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160, par. 256, and IA Court H.R., Case Vargas Areco vs. Paraguay. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 155, par. 77. In similar sense see also ECHR, Erdogan and Others v. Turkey, supra note 66, pars. 122-123, and ECHR, Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria [GC], nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98 paragraphs 111-112, 6 July 2005. 178 IA Court H.R., Case Radilla Pacheco vs. Mexico. Judgment of Preliminary Exceptions, merits, reparations and costs. November 23, 2009, par. 288, Case Garrido and Baigorria vs. Argentina, supra note 283, par. 68; Case Zambrano Vélez et al vs. Ecuador, supra note 51, par. 55, and Case Heliodoro Portugal Vs. Panamá, supra note 24, par. 179. 179 IA Court H.R., Case Radilla Pacheco vs. Mexico. Judgment of preliminary exceptions, merits, reparations and costs. November 23, 2009, Case Las Palmeras vs. Colombia, supra note 274, par. 51; Case La Cantuta vs. Peru, supra note 51, par. 142, and Case of the la Rochela Massacre vs. Colombia, supra note 83, par. 200.