24 THIRD: Order that the Joint Armed Forces and National Police Court Martial of First Instance cede jurisdiction over this case in favor of the Court of Preliminary Proceedings of the Judicial District of 106 Montecristi which is competent to carry out the appropriate preliminary criminal proceedings. 98. On January 3, 2005, the Supreme Court of Justice of the Dominican Republic denied the motion lodged by the relatives of Haitian victims executed requesting the Court to appoint a judge. In that regard, the Court said: […] conflicts over jurisdiction interrupt the normal course of proceedings. 107 […] based on the provisions [of Article 383 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Article 28 of 108 Law No. 834 of July 15, 1978 ] whenever two or more courts of equal rank are empowered to hear the same case, and the petitioner has provided evidence to that effect, the court or courts subsequently petitioned must remove themselves to give preference to the court that was originally responsible for hearing the matter. In the event that none of the parties so requests, judges may act on their own to remove themselves from the case, leaving solely and exclusively the court originally empowered, and Article 28 of Law No. 834, of July 15, 1978, becomes the rule; […] RESOLVES: FIRST: Denies the motion to appoint a judge requested by Telusma Fortilus, Rosemond Dorsala and co-parties, by decision issued on March 12, 2003 […]; and SECOND: Orders that the […] resolution be communicated to the Attorney General of the Republic and to the interested parties, 109 for appropriate action. […] 99. In August and September of 2010, the representatives of the relatives of the victims executed requested the authorities to grant them access to several documents under military 110 jurisdiction. Regarding the victims in the constant case 100. Based on the evidence contained in the case file, as well as on the allegations of the petitioners, the IACHR considers the following persons to be identified victims at the time the report on the merits is issued: 101. Persons executed: Jacqueline Maxime, Fritz Alce (Gemilord), Roselene Theremeus, Ilfaudia Dorzema, Máximo Rubén de Jesús Espinal, Pardis Fortilus and Nadege Dorzema. 102. Persons whose personal integrity was harmed: Joseph Pierre, Selafoi Pierre, Silvie Thermeus, Roland Israel, Rose Marie Dol, Josué Maxime, Michel Florantin, Cecilia Petithomme/Estilien, Sonide Nora, Alphonse Oremis, Renaud Timat, Honorio Winique and Jospeh Devraine. 106 Resolution No. 25-2005 Decision dated January 3, 2005, of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Dominican Republic. State document dated June 29, 2009. Petitioners’ document dated November 26, 2005. Annex. 107 The cited article establishes: “In criminal or correctional matters, judges may be designated by the Supreme Court of Justice, and in merely police matters, by courts of first instance, provided the judges of the preliminary hearing and the correctional or criminal courts, as well as the police courts that do not come under the authority of either, are considering the same offense or related offenses or the same violation.” 108 The cited article establishes: “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 jurisdiction to the other one if one of the parties so requests. Failing this, it may do so of its own initiative.” 109 Resolution No. 25-2005 Decision issued on January 3, 2005, by the Supreme Court of Justice of the Dominican Republic. State documents dated July 13, 2007, June 29, 2009 and September 20, 2010. Annex. Judgment. Petitioners’ document dated May 5, 2009, Annex. 110 Requests for access to the appeals lodged by the convicted members of the military Santiago Florentín and Florentino Casilla Bernard de Aza Núñez; to the decision of the Court Martial that considers the appeal; to the report submitted by the Office of the Secretary of State of the Armed Forces to to the Office of the Secretary of State for Foreign Relations dated 06/18/2010; to the decision of the investigative board of general officers which had recommended that the members of the armed forces be brought before the Joint Armed Forces and National Police Court Martial of First Instance for appropriate judicial action. Document submitted by the representatives dated September 21, 2010, Annexes 2-C.2, 2-C.3, 2-D.2, 2-E, 2-F.