38 156. On the other hand, the Commission points out that the lack of impartiality in the instant case is also demonstrated by the fact that, to date, none of the military servicemen involved is serving time in prison, even though they were fully identified and admitted to firing shots on the day the incidents took place. In that regard, the sentence imposed minimum punishments in relation to the facts; thus, two of the four lower rank servicemen were sentenced to five years in prison and the Lieutenant Colonel in charge of the operation was exonerated of any responsibility, and was sentenced to a minimal punishment of temporary suspension from duty. The IACHR further notes that the servicemen sentenced to five years appealed the sentence and won acquittal based on articles related to legitimate defense. 157. On that point, the IACHR points out that it does not have information on the reasons for the acquittal, despite the fact that the testimony of the members of the patrol involved in the incidents established that the persons who were in the truck never attacked them or fired at them. In that regard, the IACHR reiterates that it does not have that information because the State did not submit the full decisions of the courts even though they were specifically requested. 158. On the other hand, the Commission reiterates that, in its allegations before the IACHR, the State maintained that the acquittal of the military personnel was due to the fact that “it was impossible to carry out the ballistics forensic analysis to identify which firearm shot which projectile in order to be able to legally assign individual responsibility because they were unable to recover the projectiles, given that they had entered and exited the bodies of the victims.” That is, the State alleges its own lack of diligence in the recovery of the evidence at the scene as the basis to set the convicted military men free. 159. In any event, the IACHR recalls that it is clear from the evidence in the case, that from an international law perspective, the State agents used excessive and lethal force (supra), therefore the Dominican State is responsible for the arbitrary and extra-legal execution of the seven persons already mentioned, as well as for the violation of the personal integrity of several others. Despite that, the incidents remain unpunished. 160. The facts described above are a clear example of what the Commission has previously stated in the sense that, “whenever the State allows investigations to be conducted by the entities that are potentially implicated, independence and impartiality are clearly compromised [...] This type of arrangement results in the alleged perpetrators of the offense being isolated from the normal course of 174 the justice system.” In that regard, the IACHR bears in mind that when the military courts hear grave violations of human rights, as in the instant case, it constitutes a violation, among others, of the rights 175 established in articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention. 161. Last, the Commission recalls that once the State learns that its security forces have used firearms and that, as a result, a person has lost his life, it is obligated to initiate, of its own initiative and without delay, a serious, independent, impartial and effective investigation. This stems from the obligation States have “to be vigilant that its security forces, who have been given the authority to legally 176 use force, respect the right to life of those who come under their jurisdiction.” Moreover, in cases in which there are allegations of extra-legal executions, […]it is essential that the States investigate effectively the deprivation of the right to life, and, if appropriate, punish all responsible individuals specially when State agents are involved, otherwise, it would create the conditions for this type of incident to happen again within an environment of impunity, which is contrary to the State’s obligation to respect and guarantee the right to life. 174 IACHR, Report N° 10/95, Case 10.580, Manuel Stalin Bolaños, Ecuador, Annual Report of the IACHR 1995, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.91, Doc. 7, rev. 3, April 3, 1996 par. 48. 175 IACHR. Annual Report 1993. OEA/Ser.L/V/III.85. February 11, 1994. 176 IA Court H.R., Case Zambrano Vélez et al vs. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 166, par. 81; IA Court H.R. Case Montero Aranguren et al (Retén de Catia) vs. Venezuela. Judgment of July 5, 2006. Series C No. 150, par. 66. Also see IA Court H.R., Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison Vs. Perú. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160, par. 238, and IA Court H.R., Case Servellón García et al vs. Honduras. SJudgment of September 21, 2006. Series C No. 152, par. 102.