5. Regarding the proceeding in the ordinary jurisdiction 63. On September 30, 2002, Telusma Fortilus, Rosemond Dorsala, Nerve Fortilus, Allce Gyfanord, Alce Ruteau, Mirat Dorsema and Onora Therméus, next of kin of the deceased, filed a civil suit before the Court of First Instance of the Montecristi Judicial District.107 This court rejected the suit because a proceeding concerning the same facts was underway before the military jurisdiction. 64. On March 12, 2003, the same next of kin of the deceased filed an appeal before the Supreme Court of Justice of the Dominican Republic (hereinafter “the Supreme Court”) requesting the transfer of the hearing of the case to the ordinary jurisdiction.108 In this appeal, they alleged the slow pace of the proceeding, and the need for procedural transparency to guarantee the rights of the victims and their next of kin. In response to this appeal, the Supreme Court issued a decision on January 3, 2005, in which it “reject[ed] the appeal to appoint an ordinary judge” because the military jurisdiction had heard the case first.109 This decision confirmed the military jurisdiction’s competence in the case. 65. On August 2, 2007, “the victims and their representatives [were] informed of the decision of the Supreme Court of Justice regarding to the conflict of jurisdiction.”110 VII RIGHTS AFFECTED 66. Consideration of the proven facts in light of the provisions of the Convention leads to the conclusion that, in this case, the following rights have been violated:  VII-1: Rights to life and to personal integrity (Articles 4 and 5), in relation to the obligation to respect and guarantee rights and the obligation to adopt domestic legal provisions (Articles 1 and 2);  VII-2: Rights to personal liberty, freedom of movement, and judicial guarantees (Articles 7, 22 and 8), in relation to the obligation to respect rights (Articles 1);  VII-3: Rights to judicial guarantees and to judicial protection (Articles 8 and 25) in relation to the obligation to respect and guarantee rights (Article 1);  VII-4: Obligation to adopt domestic legal provisions (Article 2), even though, following the events in this case, measures have been taken to prevent this violation in future, and  VII-5: Obligation to respect and guarantee the rights without discrimination (Article 1(1) in relation to the above-mentioned rights). 107 Cf. Formal filing of a civil action before the Court of First Instance of the Judicial District of Montecristi of September 30, 2002 (file of annexes to the pleadings and motions brief, tome V, folios 2761 to 2766). 108 Cf. Request to appoint judges to hear the complaint on conflict of jurisdiction, of March 12, 2003 (file of annexes to the pleadings and motions brief, tome V, folios 2741 to 2747). 109 Cf. Decision No. 25-2005 of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Dominican Republic (file of annexes to the merits report, tome I, folios 627 to 630. 110 The State’s brief with final written arguments (merits file, folio 919). 23