investigated rigorously, they would, to a certain extent, be supported by the public authorities, which would give rise to the State’s international responsibility.” 146 103. The Court observes that, in response to the facts of this case, in a communiqué of the Armed Forces Secretariat, issued after the incident, it was announced that “the soldiers acted in compliance with the duty to monitor and safeguard [their] territory.”147 In addition, some months previously, the same yellow truck had been detained with undocumented persons. Also, according to evidence provided to the case file, on January 16, 2001, a truck that also transported Haitians was shot at, supposedly by members of the Dominican armed forces, an incident known as “the Las Coabas killing.”148 Additionally, the press has reported other supposed incidents of excessive use of force against Haitian migrants.149 In particular, based on the context of the case, newspaper articles, different testimonies, and the complaint filed by the next of kin in the domestic jurisdiction, the State should have investigated the events, taking into account the context of violence and discrimination against this type of victim. To the contrary, the State did not give the Court any reasons that would have justified the said actions (supra paras. 63 and 64). 104. Furthermore, the witness and journalist Pedro Ureña stated that:150 [As] a correspondent of the magazine Suceso y Última Hora at the time of the events, [he] was one of the first people to reach the scene. This is not the first case that has occurred between Haitian migrants and the Dominican [… armed] forces. This case is one of many cases of harassment and discrimination that occurred against Haitians. [He] saw how the head of the DOIF ordered the surviving migrants to move the bodies of the injured or deceased migrants, […] without the presence of a prosecutor. [T]he injured and the dead were thrown into the ambulances by the soldiers, as if they were objects and despite the severity of the wounds that some of them had. [… T]he attitude of the soldiers towards the victims was intimidating and repressive […] The soldiers tried to cover up the incident […] denying the shooting. People living in the area confirmed that the Haitian migrants were attacked with high caliber weapons. [He] realized that the Dominican authorities were not interested in preserving the crime scene and ensuring that justice was done. […] The victims only received first aid and their wounds were cleaned minimally. […] The investigations were conducted improperly, the victims never obtained justice, and there was never a serious investigation to examine the merits of the case. [He] wrote an article about the outrage of the families of the dead and wounded, and the indignation of the Haitian consul for the events that took place in Guayubin […]. 105. Furthermore, based on the foregoing, the effectiveness of the investigation by the competent authority acquires particular importance and significance in view of the 146 Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacres v. Colombia, supra, para. 145, and Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 23, 2009. Series C No. 209, para. 216. 147 “La versión oficial de las fuerzas armadas” [The oficial versión of the armed forces], Diario Ultima Hora, June 19, 2000 (file of annexes to the merits report, tome II, folio. 1590). 148 “Une patrouille de l’armeé dominicaine a mitraillé un nouveau camion transportant des sans papiers haïtiens” [A Dominican army patrol has machine gunned another truck transporting undocumented Haitians] online newspaper InfoHaiti.com, January 19, 2001 (file of annexes to the pleadings and motions brief, tome V, folio 3146). 149 “Polémique entre la hiérarchie militaire et le chancelier dominican sur la question des illégaux haïtiens” [Polemic between senior military officials and the Dominican Minister of Foreign Affairs regarding undocumented Haitians], online newspaper InfoHaiti.com, January 27, 2001 (file of annexes to the pleadings and motions brief, tome V, folio 3139); “Le chancelier dominicain promet des sanctions severes contre ceux qui commettent des exces contre les illégaux haïtiens” [The Dominican Minister of Foreign Affairs promises severe sanctions against those who commit excesses against undocumented Haitians], online newspaper InfoHaiti, January 21, 2001 (file of annexes to the pleadings and motions brief, tome V, folio 3145), and “Bulletin mensual d’ informationes du Comité pour la reconnaissance des droits des travailleur haïtiens en République Dominicaine” [Monthly newsletter of the Committee for the recognition of the rights of Haitian workers in Dominican Republic], May 5, 2005 (file of annexes to the pleadings and motions brief, tome VI, folio 3227). 150 Affidavit prepared by Pedro Ureña on June 16, 2012 (merits file, folio 575). 32