outcome,6 and that, in those cases, this is the appropriate way to clarify the facts, judge the perpetrators, and establish the corresponding penal sanctions, in addition to providing for other types of reparations. The Commission considers that the acts alleged by the petitioners in the present case involved the alleged violation of a fundamental, irrevocable right, the right to life, which appears in domestic legislation as an indictable crime, and that therefore it is this criminal proceeding, advanced by the State itself, that must be considered for the purposes of determining the admissibility of the petition. 38. From the information provided by the parties, it appears that the events of June 18, 2000 were investigated under the military jurisdiction. On March 5, 2004, the Joint Armed Forces and National Police Court Martial of First Instance issued a judgment of conviction in the case of three of the four accused State agents. On May 27, 2005, the Appellate Joint Armed Forces and National Police Court Martial handed down a verdict of acquittal in the case of the two State agents who appealed their conviction. 39. Moreover, it appears that in November 2002, the families of the alleged victims filed a complaint in a civilian court for preliminary criminal proceedings in the Judicial District of Montecristi, to open an investigation into the events that occurred on June 18, 2000. However, the court refused jurisdiction, due to an investigative proceeding under military jurisdiction pertaining to the same events. 40. In view of the conflict of jurisdiction, on March 12, 2003, the family members of the alleged victims filed a motion with the Supreme Court of Justice, requesting that the court for preliminary criminal proceedings of the Judicial District of Montecristi pursue the preliminary proceedings of the investigation into the events of June 18, 2000 and that the Joint Armed Forces and National Police Court Martial of First Instance be refused jurisdiction in favor of the civilian court. On January 3, 2005, the Supreme Court of Justice decided to deny the motion because the military court had begun to litigate the case prior to the civilian court. On May 27, 2005, the Appellate Joint Armed Forces and National Police Court Martial amended the judgment of the court of first instance and ordered the acquittal of the convicted soldiers, in accordance with Articles 321 and 327 of the Dominican Criminal Code. 41. In this regard, it is important to note that the Commission has repeatedly found that the military courts are not an appropriate forum and thus do not offer an adequate remedy for investigating, judging, and punishing possible violations of the human rights established in the American Convention that are allegedly committed by law enforcement agents or members of the police, with their cooperation or acquiescence. 7 42. As for the States argument to the effect that the petitioners did not exhaust all of the remedies under Dominican law, the IACHR notes that the State itself has recognized that under the legislation of the Dominican Republic, civilians cannot participate in proceedings heard in military courts. The petitioners allegeand the State has not contestedthat they did not have access to the proceeding or the case file and they were not notified of the decisions issued by the military courts. 43. The petitioners availed themselves of the remedies to which they had access for the purpose of requesting proceedings in the regular courts. With the decision issued by the Supreme Court of Justice on January 3, 2005, which decided in favor of the military jurisdiction in the jurisdictional motion brought before it, the exception to exhaustion of domestic remedies provided for in Article 46.2.a of the American Convention is verified, because due legal process to protect the right or rights allegedly violated did not exist in the domestic legislation of the Dominican Republic. 6 Report N 52/97, Case 11218, Arges Sequeira Mangas, 1997 IACHR Annual Report, paras. 96 and 97. See also Report N 55/97, para. 392. 7 IACHR, Third Report on the Human Rights Situation in Colombia (1999), p. 175; Second Report on the Human Rights Situation in Colombia (1993), p. 246; Report on the Human Rights Situation in Brazil (1997), pp. 40-42. Also, the Inter-American Court has recently confirmed that military courts are only an adequate forum for judging members of the military who committed crimes or offenses that by their very nature violate legal goods belonging to the military. I/A Court H.R., Durand and Ugarte Case. Judgment of August 16, 2000. Series C No. 68, para. 117. IACHR, Report N 43-02, Admissibility, Petition 12.009, Leydi Day Schez, Colombia, October 9, 2002, para. 23. 7