6 jurisprudence of the Court and of the Commission on this subject matter.” Last, the petitioners reserve the right to submit an updated list of victims and relatives in the future. B. Position of the State 34. The Dominican State reiterates that the case must be declared inadmissible because the victims and their relatives still have available legal remedies in the ordinary judicial system to have access to compensation for the effects of the facts that took place on June 18, 2000, if pertinent. The State adds that the judicial proceedings in the military tribunal have legal and constitutional bases in addition to meeting the standards established in international human rights laws. 35. The State alleges that in compliance with the provisions of Article 1(1) of the American Convention, “the Armed Forces have established the School of Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law which provides courses to members of the Armed Forces across the country […] for the purpose of teaching them how treat people as human beings regardless of their beliefs, race or religion.” 36. With regards to the right to life enshrined in Article 4 of the American Convention, the State acknowledges that on the day the events took place, when a military patrol tried to detain the vehicle that had crossed the checkpoint, six Haitian nationals and one Dominican national lost their lives. However, the State contends that the deaths of those persons should not be classified as murder because, in accordance with the Dominican Criminal Code, “the elements required for the act to constitute murder are that, once a homicide has been committed, there must be additional aggravating acts committed against the victims, a situation that has not been established by any means in this case.” Furthermore, the State contends that premeditation implies “intent before the action to attempt against any person with the objective of taking their life or to commit acts of violence against them.” 37. The State alleges that the troops did not know the persons traveling in the vehicle. On the contrary, “they had received information from the national intelligence system that the offenders were trying to presumably carry out illicit narcotics trafficking.” The State adds that the events took place at night, in a dark area, and given that the vehicle was covered with a tarp, it was impossible to determine that there were persons inside. Therefore, the State rejects the notion that the actions were intentional. 38. With regard to the disproportionate use of force and opening fire with the intent of executing the Haitian nationals, the State contends that the troops “did not have any other means with which to stop the vehicle carrying the offenders, although they had been engaged in a pursuit of the vehicle for a few kilometers, which, under the law, could be construed as legal excuse due to provocation, which would in turn derive in attenuating circumstances with regard to any punishment that could be imposed on the accused.” 39. On the other hand, the State makes reference to “the contradictory testimony given by the driver of the vehicle [with regard to the events of June 18, 2000, because that person’s] credibility was compromised since he could bear criminal responsibility in the case.” The State adds that “by proceeding with the arrest of the driver and bringing him before the ordinary justice system, [the military demonstrated] that they respected his individual rights.” 40. With regard to Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, the State points out that the Office of the Secretary of State of the Armed Forces ordered that the investigation of the massacre be conducted by a board comprised of general officers from various branches, and that the case was tried by the Joint Armed Forces and National Police Court Martial of First Instance. The State reports that the alleged authors were charged with violating Articles 295, 304 and 309 of the Criminal Code, in accordance with the provisions of Article 3 of the Armed Forces Code of Justice which establishes that “military jurisdictions are competent to prosecute offenses committed by military personnel while discharging their duty, regardless of where the offenses were committed.” Based on the preceding, the Supreme Court of Justice dismissed the complaint lodged by the relatives of the victims requesting that the facts be heard in the ordinary justice system.