32 130. The State argued before the IACHR, that the acquittal of the military members involved was due to “the impossibility to carry out the ballistics forensic analysis to identify each firearms from which the projectiles were fired in order to legally assign individual responsibility, given that it was not possible to collect the bullets because they had gone through the bodies of the victims.” In other words, the Dominican State justifies its lack of diligence at the scene of the incident to leave the crimes unpunished. In that regard, the IACHR notes that it is not evident from the case file that the State had determined what had happened the day of the incident based on basic information from the crime scene such as bullets, casings, etc. 131. The Commission considers that, taken together, the preceding elements lead to the conclusion that the Dominican State failed to comply with the obligation to respect the right to life and the right to personal integrity of Jacqueline Maxime, Fritz Alce, Roselene Theremeus, Ilfaudia Dorzema and Máximo Rubén de Jesús Espinal for the fear it is reasonable to infer they felt during the pursuit, the shooting, and for the arbitrary executions carried out by members of the Dominican army. In the specific case of Pardis Fortilus and Nadege Dorzema, that the State failed to respect the same rights, for the fear it is reasonable to infer they felt during the pursuit, the shooting during which several of their companions lost their lives, for continuing to be fired on when fleeing the scene and for the extrajudicial execution at the hands of members of the Dominican Army. The State also failed to comply with the obligation to guarantee those rights by not conducting a serious and diligent investigation in order to determine what had happened, determine the legality of the use of lethal force, and, if applicable, impose the proper sanctions. Consequently, the Commission concludes that the State violated Articles 4.1, 5.1 and 5.2 of the American Convention in connection with Article 1(1) of the same instrument, to their detriment. 132. On the other hand, the Commission would like to emphasize that the situation of danger 151 to life and fear experienced by the survivors and the persons who were detained , is equally applicable to them as it is to those persons who lost their lives. Therefore, the Commission concludes that the Dominican State failed to comply with the obligation to respect the right to personal integrity of Joseph Pierre, Selafoi Pierre, Silvie Thermeus, Roland Israel, Rose Marie Dol, Josué Maxime, Michel Florantin, Cecilia Petithomme/Estilien, Sonide Nora, Alphonse Oremis, Renaud Timat and Honorio Winique, for the fear it is reasonable to infer they experienced during the pursuit, the shooting, and for the extra-legal execution and grave injuries sustained by several of their companions at the hands of the members of the Dominican Army and by the injuries they sustained. Consequently, the Commission concludes that, to their detriment, the State violated Article 5.1 and 5.2 of the American Convention in connection to Article 1(1) of the same instrument. 133. With respect to Joseph Devraine, the IACHR notes that he was not include in the Report on Admissibility because he was not alleged as a victim in the original petition. However, after that report was issued, the petitioners included him as an alleged victim and submitted evidence of the alleged 152 violation. That information was made available to the State. In that regard, the IACHR considers that the State failed to comply with the obligation to respect his personal integrity for the same reasons outlined in the preceding paragraph and, thus, the Commission concludes that the State violated Article 5.1 and 5.2 of the American Convention in connection to Article 1(1) of the same instrument to the detriment of this person. 134. The IACHR, on the other hand, notes that the petitioners stated that based on the testimony of the survivors, “other persons [were] seriously injured in addition to Joseph Devraine,” and therefore considered that the State was responsible for violating Article 5 of the Convention with regard to the persons identified in paragraphs 132 and 133, as well as with regard to “other persons.” In that regard, the IACHR notes that although it is evident from the testimony that there were other persons who were injured and who were transported to the hospital, the case file does not include sufficient information to determine their identity or any specific allegations about their situation. Therefore, the Commission will not include them in this report. The lack of sufficient information notwithstanding, the Dominican Republic 151 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. 152 See petitioners’ document dated May 5, 2009.