12. The petitioners report that after this event, some of the alleged victims of the so-called Guayubin Massacre were transferred to detention centers in the cities of Montecristi and Dajab, where they were held arbitrarily, without being informed of the reasons for their detention. In this regard, they say that the State agents who arrested and detained them did not request their identification, and that the courts did not examine their legality. They further report that after being detained, they were expelled from the Dominican Republic, without any attempt ever made to determine their legal status by judicial or administrative means. 13. The petitioners allege that on June 19, 2000, agents from the Ministry of Defense opened an investigation into the events that occurred, and on June 24, 2000, an official indictment was issued by the Prosecutor of the Joint Armed Forces and National Police Court Martial of First Instance [Consejo de Guerra de Primera Instancia Mixto de las Fuerzas Armadas y de la Polic Nacional], against the soldiers involved in the acts, who were charged with voluntary homicide. They further report that the court hearing on the preliminary proceedings [Juzgado de Instrucci] of the Joint Armed Forces and National Police Court Martial of First Instance concluded that there was serious, critical, specific, and consistent evidence pointing to the criminal liability of the accused soldiers, and the need for them to be judged pursuant to the law. As a result of these considerations, it recommended that the accused be tried by the Joint Armed Forces and National Police Court Martial of the First Instance, as allegedly responsible for violating Articles 295, 304, and 309 of the Dominican Criminal Code. They assert that despite the fact that an arrest warrant for immediate execution was issued by the public prosecutor [Magistrado Procurador Fiscal] against the persons charged, it was never carried out. 14. The petitioners state that the military proceedings were officially initiated, but that the alleged victims and their families were unable to attend as civilian parties, because Article 8 of the Code of Justice of the Armed Forces does not allow it. 15. They explain that as a result of the lack of transparency of the military proceedings and the fact that it was impossible for them to be civilian parties to the proceedings, in 2002 Thelusma Fortilus, Rosemond Dorzema, Nerve Fortilus, Alce Gyfranord, Alce Ruteau, Mirat Dorzema, and Onora Thereneus, family members of the alleged victims, filed a complaint with the Court for Preliminary Proceedings of the Judicial District of Montecristi. They report that the soldiers involved were summoned on four different occasions by the judge presiding over the preliminary proceedings, but they never appeared. According to the petitioners, when the soldiers failed to appear, the judge decided to proceed with the interrogation of the family members of the victims. However, before the interrogation was initiated, that same judge for the case ordered the suspension of said proceedings, based on the argument that the case was pending in a Military Court. 16. The petitioners indicate that this situation generated a conflict of jurisdiction. Consequently, on March 12, 2003, the family members of the alleged victims petitioned the Supreme Court of Justice of the Dominican Republic to settle the conflict of jurisdiction, requesting that the Court refuse jurisdiction to the Military Court in favor of the regular courts. The petitioners report that at the time the petition was lodged with the IACHR, the highest court had not resolved the conflict of jurisdiction, and that this constituted an unwarranted delay in rendering a judgment under domestic remedies. On this point, they maintain that they were informed, by way of the observations of the State submitted to the IACHR on July 13, 2007, that the Supreme Court of Justice had resolved the conflict of jurisdiction in favor of the military courts on January 3, 2005. 17. The petitioners further state that the outcome of the proceedings in the Military Courts was the judgment of March 5, 2004, issued by the Joint Armed Forces and National Police Court Martial of First Instance, in which three soldiers were found guilty, two were convicted to 5 years imprisonment and one was suspended from duty for 30 days, while the fourth soldier was acquitted. After that verdict was handed down, the two soldiers convicted and sentenced to prison appealed, and on May 27, 2005, the Appellate Joint Armed Forces and National Police Court Martial amended the judgment of the court of first instance and ordered the acquittal of 3