14. As for the obligation of domestic legal effects, the petitioners argued that Mexican law allowed the military courts to arrogate to themselves the authority to investigate cases of human rights violations. They noted that said provision of the law runs counter to the tenets of the American Convention and, consequently, Mexico has the obligation to adopt legislative or other measures, as may be necessary, in order to prevent the military authorities from overstepping their powers. 15. Lastly, the petitioners asserted that Mr. Trueba’s family members received an amount of money as compensation under an agreement signed with the State in September 2002. B. Position of the State 16. The State recognized that on August 22, 1998, Mirey Trueba was shot dead by a member of the Mexican Army. It specifically claimed that when the group of soldiers stopped the car Mr. Trueba was riding in, he got out of the vehicle, dropped a gun and started to run off shouting “don’t follow me ‘cause I’ll shoot.” In its initial submission, the State wrote that because of this situation, one of the soldiers “fired his weapon.” It contended that the shots fired were not aimed at any target, but that because of the darkness of the night, “he fired them without having a specific point.” The State’s position on these incidents is consistent with the conclusions reached in the domestic investigation and criminal proceedings under the military criminal justice system. 17. Regarding the alleged lack of medical assistance for Mr. Trueba after being shot, the State contended that once the medic’s unit arrived on the scene of the incident, he was put into an ambulance. It claimed that Mr. Trueba passed away while the ambulance was on its way to the closest clinic. The State did not address the petitioners’ allegations about the three-hour delay to arrive in the hospital, nor did it provide any explanation about it. 18. With respect to the investigation conducted, the State contended that that Office of the Public Prosecutor opened a preliminary investigation promptly and, based on the evidence gathered therein, brought a charge against the officer that shot Mr. Trueba. It alleged that after the trial in the military court, a conviction was handed down against him in 2000 for the crime of simple intentional homicide, which was subsequently reduced on appeal to manslaughter or negligent homicide. The State further claimed that the proceeding was conducted expeditiously and within a reasonable period of time. 19. As for the proportionality of the punishment, the State alleged that Mr. Trueba was deprived of his life as a result of negligence. It further argued that the military trial was held in a public hearing and, consequently, information about it was not held back from Mr. Trueba’s family members. It also claimed that Mr. Trueba’s family members did not assert their right to act as collaborating parties in the proceedings. The State recognized that the military courthouse was located far away from Baborigame. It explained that, in its view, that does not justify the family members not becoming a party to the proceeding. 20. With relation to the choice of trying the case under the military criminal jurisdiction, the State argued that the Office of the Attorney General of Chihuahua ceded jurisdiction to the military courts based on a provision of Article 57 of the Code of Military Justice in force at the time. 21. In its communication of 2012, the State noted that currently “there is a debate on jurisdiction of military courts to hear matters in which civilians are involved.” It claimed that it was working on several different initiatives to reform the Military Code of Justice. 22. The State noted that, in addition to conducting an effective investigation, it paid monetary compensation to Mr. Trueba’s next of kin in order to redress the damages caused to them. It explained that in September 2002, an agreement was reached with Mr. Trueba’s father, to pay the sum of $117,822.00 Mexican pesos as reparation for the pain and suffering and material damages, and that it made good on the payment. 3