191. As in previous cases,259 the Court has considered that, given the conclusion that the military justice system is not competent, it is not necessary to rule on other arguments regarding the independence or impartiality of the military jurisdiction or the possible violation of other parameters of the rights to judicial guarantees and to judicial protection. Nevertheless, the Court considers it necessary to point out some of the irregularities in the proceeding that led to impunity in the case. 192. Thus, the Court observes, inter alia, that: (a) the investigation was carried out by military officials and judges, (supra paras. 56 to 62); (b) there is no record of any ballistics report; (c) the presumed victims were not allowed to take part in the proceedings; (d) in the investigation, the State did not individualize the injured persons, so that these facts remained unpunished (supra para. 58); (e) the evidence before the Court does not show that the arrest warrant against the indicted soldiers was executed (supra para. 58), and (f) the investigation did not establish whether the use of force respected the principles of legality, necessity and proportionality. 193. In addition, with regard to the judicial decisions adopted, the Court notes that the judgment of the Joint Court Martial Appeals Court that acquitted the three soldiers who had been convicted in first instance, merely ordered the “acquittal” of the accused based on articles 321 and 327 of the Dominican Criminal Code. In this regard, the Court observes that article 321 refers to the grounds for excusing the crime of murder, if it has been preceded by “provocation, or serious threats or violence” (supra para. 62). In this case, it has been established that the victims never offered any resistance or posed any danger to the soldiers, a fact confirmed by the soldiers themselves during interrogations conducted in the investigation of the event (supra para. 83). Moreover, the Court underscores that article 327 referred to by the Joint Court Martial Appeals Court in its judgment had been annulled by Law No. 24-97 of January 28, 1997 (supra para. 62). 194. In addition, the Court found it proved that the First Instance Court of the Montecristi Judicial District rejected the request made by the next of kin of the deceased of September 30, 2002, that an investigation be opened in the ordinary jurisdiction (supra paras. 63 and 64). In addition, the decision of the Supreme Court of Justice of January 3, 2005, rejected the appeal for the appointment of an ordinary judge disregarding the provisions of the Convention that restrict the military jurisdiction. Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that both judicial decisions obstructed the participation of the next of kin of the deceased in their capacity as victims. 195. Furthermore, the Court recalls that the principle of “res judicata” signifies the final nature of a judgment only when this is reached respecting due process in accordance with this Court’s case law on the matter.260 Specifically regarding the concept of res judicata, the Court has indicated that the ne bis in idem principle is not applicable when the proceeding that culminates in the dismissal of the case, or the acquittal of the person responsible for a human rights violation, and absolves the accused of criminal responsibility, is not conducted independently and impartially in accordance with due procedural guarantees, or when there is no real intention of bringing those responsible to justice.261 196. The Court also considers that “apparent” res judicata occurs when the factual analysis reveals that judicial investigation, the proceeding and the judicial decisions were not 259 Cf. Case of Usón Ramírez v. Venezuela, supra, para. 124, and Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico, supra, para. 201. 260 Cf. Case of Carpio Nicolle et al. v. Chile, supra, paras. 131 and 132; Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. v. Chile, supra, para. 154, and Case of the La Rochela Massacre v. Colombia, supra, para. 197. 261 Cf. Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. v. Chile, supra, para. 154. 53