201. From the evidence in the case file, the Court notes that the laws in force at the time of the events and their application by domestic courts did not exclude the facts of the case from the military jurisdiction (infra para. 209). Moreover, both the First Instance Court of the Montecristi Judicial District and the Supreme Court of Justice rejected two appeals filed by the next of kin of the deceased victims for the case to be investigated and tried by the ordinary jurisdiction (supra paras. 63 and 64). Similarly, the Court emphasizes that the military criminal proceeding did not permit the participation of the victims’ next of kin, since article 8 of Law No. 3483 stipulated that “no person may become a civil party before the military courts.”267 In addition, the Court notes that the injuries suffered by the Haitian survivors were not investigated or prosecuted by the State (supra para. 98) and that, more than 12 years after the events occurred, no one has been convicted and the facts remain in total impunity. All the above deprived the next of kin of the deceased victims and the injured survivors from access to justice and violated the right to judicial guarantees and judicial protection established in Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument to their detriment (infra Annex A). VIII-4 OBLIGATION TO ADOPT DOMESTIC LEGAL PROVISIONS 202. The Court will now examine the arguments concerning the obligation to adopt domestic legal provisions and the legislative reforms implemented in Dominican Republic in order to determine whether, in this case, there was a violation of this State obligation. A. Arguments 203. The Commission observed that the norm that established the competence of the military jurisdiction to hear the case was broad and allowed for the inclusion of any action carried out by a soldier in the course of duty, because it did not establish “clearly and without ambiguity which crimes were considered to fall within the military function, establishing the direct and close relationship with that function or with the impairment of rights inherent to the military sphere.” It also indicated that no other norm described or explained the issue more clearly, so that the State violated Article 2 in relation to Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention. 204. The representatives agreed with the Commission regarding the ambiguity of Dominican law, which did not specify the offenses that were considered to fall within the military sphere, and argued that, owing to the mere existence of the laws that prevailed at the time in Dominican Republic, which permitted the prosecution of human rights violations by the military system of justice, the State had violated “Articles 8, 25 of the Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof.” In addition, the representatives alleged the violation of the same articles of the Convention because the State had not eliminated the norms that violated the Convention and had failed to carry out an opportune ‘control of conformity with the Convention’ of the relevant Dominican legislation. 205. The State indicated in its final oral and written arguments that, following the facts of this case, changes had been made in the domestic legislation, such as the adoption of Law No. 76-02, on July 2, 2002, that established the Code of Criminal Procedure. This law amended “article 3 of special Law No. 3483 of February 13, 1953,” which had served as the legal support to prosecute members of the patrol involved in the events before the military jurisdiction. According to the State, the new law establishes the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the military criminal courts to hear offenses of a purely military disciplinary 267 Law No. 3483, de 1953, supra, folio 4056). 55