to various facts, such as: (a) the lack of access and participation of the victims’ next of kin and the survivors in the investigation; (b) testimony was only taken from the soldiers involved, the driver of the vehicle, and one of the survivors; (c) the soldiers involved have been released despite having been identified and having admitted that they fired shots on the day of the incident; (d) deficiencies in the protection of the crime scene, in the ballistic tests, and in the autopsies of the corpses; (e) the investigation did not establish whether the use of force respected the principles of legality, need and proportionality, and (f) “the arbitrary and extrajudicial executions, as well as the gunshot injuries of the survivors cannot be considered offenses committed in the line of duty, but rather grave human rights violations and, consequently, the investigation of the facts […] should have been undertaken in the ordinary jurisdiction.” Moreover, Dominican Republic has not provided a satisfactory explanation of the facts, and has not disproved the allegations regarding responsibility based on probative elements” and has therefore violated Articles 8 and 25 in relation to Article 1(1) of the Convention. 181. The representatives indicated that the State had not conducted an exhaustive, serious and impartial investigation into the facts of this case. They added that the military courts lack the necessary independence and impartiality to investigate and prosecute the human rights violations committed by members of the armed forces. In addition, they indicated that the fact that there was no investigation under the ordinary justice system perpetuated a climate of impunity, which violated Article 8 and 25 of the American Convention in relation to Article 1(1) thereof. 182. The State asserted in its final written arguments that it “has fulfilled its obligation to investigate the facts of the case. The investigations […] were based on criteria of impartiality, objectivity, and the search for the truth. Similarly, both the […] ordinary justice system and the military justice system heard the case, and both jurisdictions investigated the site, examined the facts, and subsequently issued a decision in each case.” The State also argued during the public hearing that, “pursuant to article 8 of the Code of Justice of the Armed Forces, the victims could have received financial compensation […] from the ordinary jurisdiction.” B. Considerations of the Court 183. The Court has previously determined that there is a general obligation of guarantee arising from Article 1(1) of the American Convention and that it is closely related to the other obligations established in this instrument.251 The obligation to investigate the facts that constitute human rights violations is one of the duties arising from the obligation to ensure rights established in the Convention.252 184. Indeed, this fundamental legal obligation includes “reasonable prevention of human rights violations and a serious investigation, using all available means, of the violations that have been committed within its jurisdiction,” so as to be able to identify and punish the perpetrators of the violation and make reparation to the victims.253 185. These functions must be performed by judges who are independent and impartial when hearing human rights violations. Thus, it must be ensured that the judges “do not 251 Cf. Case of Vargas Areco v. Paraguay. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 155, para. 73, and Case of Vélez Restrepo and family members v. Colombia, supra, para. 126. 252 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, paras. 166 and 176, and Case of the Barrios Family v. Venezuela, supra, para. 174. 253 Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, para. 174, and Case of Vélez Restrepo and family members v. Colombia, supra, para. 186. 51