34 138. On December 30, 2002, the relatives of the Haitian victims executed filed a private constitutional complaint with the Chief Justice with jurisdiction over preliminary proceedings of the Judicial District of Montecristi, whose judicial response is not included in the case file lodged with the IACHR. Later, on March 12, 2003, those relatives lodged an appeal with the Supreme Court of Justice requesting that the investigation into the involvement of the members of the military be transferred to ordinary jurisdiction. . 139. On March 5, 2004, the Special Military Court sentenced military servicemen Santiago Florentín Castilla and Bernardo de Aza Núñez to five years in prison for homicide. The military tribunal also found Lieutenant Colonel Ferison Lagrance Vargas guilty of the same crime, but, in his case, took into account attenuating circumstances, and was therefore sentenced to 30 days suspension from duty. Last, the tribunal found Captain Johannes Paul Franco Camacho not guilty. Military servicemen Florentín Castilla and de Aza Núñez appealed the sentence and the Appellate Joint Armed Forces and National Police Court-Martial decided to nullify the sentence ordering that the convictions be “dismissed” and setting the defendants free, based on articles of the ordinary criminal code relating to the “excusable nature” of homicide in cases of “provocation, threat or serious violence,” as well as on an article no longer in force at the time of the incidents relating to legitimate defense. 140. On January 3, 2005, the Supreme Court of Justice denied the motion lodged by the relatives of the victims executed based on the fact that domestic legislation established that “when two courts of equal rank are competent to hear the same case, […the second one] must cede jurisdiction in favor of the court where the case was originally heard.” However, the relatives were not notified of the Court’s ruling until they were already engaged in the processing of their petition before the Inter-American Commission in 2006. 141. The State asserted that the facts of the instant case had been duly investigated and those responsible brought to justice, both in ordinary jurisdiction (with regard to the alleged offenders involved in trafficking of persons) as well as in military jurisdiction (with regard to the members of the military involved), and therefore considered that the armed forces had complied with “their duty to empower the competent jurisdiction in order to shed light on such a regrettable incident.” The State also alleged that “military courts are competent to hear offenses committed by military personnel in the performance of their duties regardless of where the offenses were committed.” 142. In that regard, the IACHR notes that Article 3 of the Armed Forces Code of Justice establishes that “military courts are competent to hear offenses committed by military personnel in the performance of their duties regardless of where the offense were committed [and that all] other crimes, offenses or violations committed by military members or attached personnel shall be tried in ordinary courts in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal procedure, the Criminal Code and of 155 general criminal laws.’ Article 145 of the Organic Law of the Armed Forces establishes that “crimes and offenses committed by members of the military in active service shall be tried and punished according to the provisions of the Armed Forces Code of Justice.” 143. On the other hand, the Commission notes that Article 382 gives the Supreme Court of Justice the authority to assign judges when “judges with jurisdiction over preliminary proceedings and the correctional or criminal courts as well as police courts, that do not come under the authority of either, are competent to hear the same offense or predicate offenses or the same violation.” Also, Article 28 of Law 155 Excerpts of the Armed Forces Code of Justice, State document dated June 29, 2009, Annex. Article 3: Military courts are competent to hear special military offenses established in the second volume of this Code, except for those offenses exempted by the Code. All offenses committed by military or attached personnel in garrisons, encampments or on any other military or naval facility or aboard State vessels or aircraft shall be tried in military courts. Military courts are also competent to hear any offenses committed by members of the military while in the performance of their duties regardless of where the offenses were committed. […] All other crimes, offenses or violations committed by military members or attached personnel shall be tried in ordinary courts according to the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Criminal Code and of general criminal laws.