31 the Commission points out that the majority of the gunshot injuries sustained by the victims were to the head, thorax and abdomen. 125. The Commission further notes that the autopsies indicate two different situations, which are supported by the testimony of the survivors: that some of the Haitian nationals sustained gunshot wounds and were killed during the pursuit while in the bed of the truck, and that at least two others were executed while fleeing the scene after the truck had overturned. 126. In the specific cases of Pardis Fortilus and Nadege Dorzema, the IACHR notes that both sustained multiple gunshot wound to the back, which coincides with the testimony of all the survivors that indicated that once the truck had overturned, the troops fired on two persons who were trying to flee. In that regard, the IACHR points out that the Attorney General of the Republic considered the actions of the troops “unnecessary in ever respect” since, “as some of the [witnesses] involved have testified, ”some of 150 the Haitian nationals were assassinated after the truck had rolled over.” Moreover, the IACHR notes that it is not evident from the information in the case file that the authorities conducted an analysis of the injuries, but rather, that the military legal system had relied only on the testimony of the military personnel involved in the incidents and who claimed not to have fired on anyone after the truck had overturned. The Commission also notes with concern that, even though the autopsy reports issued in June 2000 established that those victims sustained multiple gunshots which caused their death, a month after the events, one of the death certificates concluded that Nadege Dorzema had died in an “automobile accident.” With regard to the preceding, based on the amount of evidence in the case, the Commission considers that the Dominican State is responsible for the extrajudicial executions of, at least, Pardis Fortilus and Nadege Dorzema. 127. The IACHR also notes that the deaths of Jacqueline Maxime, Fritz Alce, Roselene Theremeus, Ilfaudia Dorzema, Pardis Fortilus, Nadege Dorzema and Máximo Rubén de Jesús Espinal, as well as the injuries sustained by several persons who were traveling in the truck, exhibit characteristics that fit within the parameters of the conducts described in the context section, that is, the majority are Haitian migrants who are arbitrarily executed within a pattern of abuse of power by State authorities, even though they were unarmed. 128. On the other hand, faced with the use of lethal force by State agents, not only did the Dominican authorities transfer the investigation to the military jurisdiction (which will be analyzed in the chapter concerning Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention) but they have not submitted information on whether they have conducted an analysis to determine whether the use of force met the principles of legality, necessity and proportionality. The authorities have not provided information either on whether they have carried out a forensic analysis of the trajectory of the projectiles. 129. Related to the preceding, in the processing before the IACHR, the State alleged that based on the fact that the members of the patrol “did not have any other means to make the truck stop,” “a legal excuse of provocation applied, which would attenuate whatever punishment may be imposed on the defendants.” Also, according to the articles cited in the decision issued by the military tribunal, the acquittal of the members of the military sentenced to five years in prison for their responsibility in the incident was based on the argument that the homicide they committed was “excusable” due to the fact that the victims executed had “provoked, threatened or gravelly assaulted them” and, as a result, the exception of legitimate defense applied. That is to say, in accordance with that analysis, the State considers that, contrary to international standards on the use of force, the members of the military had to stop the vehicle at all costs, including the death of the persons who were traveling in it. In that regard, the IACHR notes that, as it was previously pointed out, the persons who were traveling in the yellow truck did not constitute a danger to the lives of the persons who were traveling in the patrol wagon. Also on that subject, the Commission notes that the State did not provide evidence of the analysis carried out with regard to the principles of necessity and proportionality. 150 Note sent on July 19, 2000, by the Attorney General of the Republic to the Secretary of State of the Armed Forces, State document dated September 20, 2010, Annex.