the convicted soldiers, in accordance with Articles 321 and 327 of the Dominican Criminal Code. 18. With regard to the investigation into and punishment of the acts described in the petition, the petitioners state that the State gave preference to the military jurisdiction over the civilian one. They argue that the State is responsible for violation of the rights established in Articles 4, 5, 7, 8, 24, and 25 of the American Convention, considered in relation to Article 1.1 of that international instrument. Insofar as Article 24 is concerned, they contend that the situation in question is not exceptional in the Dominican Republic, but that abuses of this type are frequent. They further state that there was discriminatory treatment of the alleged victims both on June 18, 2000 and during the judicial proceedings, which were inadequate and ineffective. 19. As for the requirements for admissibility of this complaint, the petitioners allege that the rule contained in Article 46.1 of the American Convention should not apply, since the victims were prevented from exhausting adequate remedies under the domestic legal system. 4 B. The State 20. The State alleges that this case refers to a truck on the stretch of highway between Botoncillo and Copey, in the jurisdiction of Montecristi that ran through a checkpoint and then had an accident. It adds that in view of the fact that it was 3:00 a.m. on June 18, 2000, the DOIF personnel, together with members of the National Army from the Botoncillo military post, ordered a Daihatsu truck, covered with canvas, to halt, as they had information that it was attempting to bring in drugs. 21. The State further reports that the truck charged past the soldiers who were at the military station, as a result of which they fired a shot in the air. When the truck failed to stop, the members of the patrol shot at the tires of the vehicle, which caused the vehicle to have an accident. They then determined that under the canvas were approximately thirty Haitian nationals, seven of whom died and thirteen of whom were injured as a result. The State Secretariat of the Armed Forces therefore ordered the appropriate investigation to be conducted by a Joint Board of General officials, in order No. 15012 dated Jun 19, 2000. 22. The State indicates that as a result of the accident in which the truck overturned, causing the death of six Haitian nationals and one Dominican, the Joint Board of General Officers conducted an investigation and recommended that the four soldiers be tried by the Joint Armed Forces and National Police Court Martial of First Instance, as allegedly responsible for violating Articles 295, 304, and 309 of the Criminal Code, in accordance with the provisions of Article 3 of the Code of Justice of the Armed Forces (Law No. 3483 of February 13, 1953), which states: Violations committed by soldiers in the exercise of their duties also come under the jurisdiction of military courts, no matter where they were committed. If the violation was committed in another country, the proceeding shall take place after the accused is returned to the Republic. 23. The State further indicates that military courts only rule on criminal action, and that this case involves an action in the process of settlement which is governed by the procedural rules prior to September 27, 2004, the date on which the Dominican Penal Code of Procedure (Law 76-2002) entered into force; therefore, it had to be tried under the former rules of procedure established in the Code of Criminal Procedure. 24. The State adds that the Supreme Court of Justice denied the motion to appoint a civilian court judge, filed on March 12, 2003 by Telusma Fortilus, Rosemond Dorsala et al., pursuant to Resolution No. 25-2005, dated January 3, 2005. In its decision, the Supreme Court pointed out that whenever two or more courts of equal rank are seized with the same case, and the petitioner has brought the relevant evidence, the court or courts subsequently petitioned must 4 In the petition, the petitioners further allege application of the exception to exhaustion of domestic remedies contemplated in Article 46.2. of the American Convention, because on the date that the petition was lodged with the IACHR, they were not notified of the decision by the Supreme Court of Justice issued on January 3, 2005. 4