40 […] as regards military criminal rules, […] such rules shall establish clearly and without ambiguities, inter alia, any typical criminal behaviors particular to the military forum and shall determine the nature of any illicit behavior by describing the damage or how it jeopardizes the military juridical benefits that have been seriously attacked, so that the exercise of a military punitive power is 180 justified, as well as specifying the corresponding sanction. . 167. The IACHR observes that it is so difficult to determine the limit between the offenses that can be heard by the military or the ordinary jurisdiction, that on the one hand, Article 382 of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers the Supreme Court of Justice to designate judges when “the judges of the preliminary hearing and the correctional or criminal courts, as well as police courts that do not come under the jurisdiction of either, are considering the same offense, or related offenses or the same violation.” Likewise, Article y 28 of Law No. 834 of July 15, 1978, establishes that “if the same case is pending in two courts of equal rank and equally competent to hear it, the second court to be petitioned must cede to the other if one of the parties so requests”. 168. In that regard, the Inter-American Court has established that: The possibility that the military courts prosecute any soldier who is accused of an ordinary crime, for the mere fact of being in service, implies that the jurisdiction is granted due to the mere circumstance of being a soldier. In that sense, even when the crime is committed by soldiers while they are still in service or based on acts of the same, this is not enough for their knowledge to 181 correspond to the military criminal justice. 169. Last, the IACHR observes that the Supreme Court of Justice would be empowered to interpret the scope of Article 3 of the Armed Forces Code of Justice as it has done with regard to other similar provisions (supra)182. However, the evidence in the case file does not indicate that, to date, said tribunal has made such interpretation. 170. Therefore, the Commission concludes that the Dominican State failed to comply with the obligation established in Article 2 of the American Convention in connection with Articles 8 and 25 of the same instrument, in extending the competence of the military jurisdiction to offenses that do not bear any direct relation to military discipline or to the legal rights of the armed forces. 4. Right to personal integrity (Article 5 of the Convention), in connection to Article 1(1) of the same instrument to the detriment of the relatives of the victims 171. With regard to the relatives of Jacqueline Maxime, Fritz Alce, Roselene Theremeus, Ilfaudia Dorzema, Pardis Fortilus y Nadege Dorzema and Máximo Rubén de Jesús Espinal, the Commission would llike to reiterate that on several occasions, the inter-American Court has stated that 183 “the relatives of the victims of human rights violations may be victims themselves.” 172. With regard to arbitrary and extra-legal executions specifically, the Court has said that “no proof is needed to demonstrate the serious impact to the psychic integrity of the relatives of the victims executed.”184 Based on the preceding, with regard to the pain and suffering experienced by the relatives killed in extra-legal executions, the Commission, consistent with the jurisprudence of the Inter-American 180 IA Court H.R. Case Usón Ramírez vs. Venezuela. Preliminary Exception, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2009. Series C No. 207, par. 55 and IA Court H.R., Case Palamara Iribarne vs. Chile. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 135, par. 126. 181 IA Court H.R., Case Radilla Pacheco vs. Mexico. Judgment of Preliminary Exceptions, merits, reparations and costs. November 23, 2009, par. 286. 182 Judgment of December 26, 2001, available at http://www.suprema.gov.do/novedades/sentencias/tyson.htm 183 IA Court H.R., Case Castillo Páez. Reparations (art. 63.1 American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of November 27, 1998. Series C No. 43, par. 88. Also see IA Court H.R., Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140, par. 154. 184 IA Court H.R., Case of the Ituango Massacres vs. Colombia. Preliminary Exception, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 1, 2006. Series C No. 148, par. 262. Also see IA Court H.R., Case of the Mapiripán Massacre vs. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134, par.146.