remove themselves to give preference to the court that was originally responsible for hearing the matter. In the event that none of the parties so requests, the judges may take the initiative and remove themselves from the case, leaving solely and exclusively the court originally empowered. 25. According to the State, this line of reasoning is based on the following precepts: a) Article 382 of the 1884 Code of Criminal Procedure, which establishes that: In criminal or correctional matters, judges may be designated by the Supreme Court of Justice, and in merely police matters, by courts of first instance, provided the judges of the preliminary hearing and the correctional or criminal courts, as well as police courts that do not come under the authority of either, are considering the same offense or related offenses or the same violation; and, b) Article 28 of Law No. 834 of July 15, 1978, which establishes that: If the same case is pending in two courts of the same rank that are equally competent to hear it, the second court to be seized of it must cede to the other if one of the parties so requests. Failing this, it may do so on its own initiative. 26. The State alleges that since this case involves a criminal offense provided for and punished in Dominican legislation, the Joint Armed Forces and National Police Court Martial of First Instance assumed jurisdiction and the national armed forces investigated the unfortunate incident. 27. Similarly, the State contends that it is wrong to assert that the military courts could not hear the case, since Dominican law grants such powers to different legal systems. 28. Moreover, the State advised that the Dominican Republic recognizes and applies the rules of general and American international law to the extent that its government has adopted it, notwithstanding the fact that the sovereignty of the Dominican nation, as a free and independent state, is inviolable. It adds that in the Dominican Republic, police and security laws are binding on all inhabitants of the territory, and that the State recognizes that it is its purpose to provide effective protection for all human beings and to maintain an environment in which they can continually improve themselves, in a context of individual freedom and social justice, consistent with public order, general well-being, and the rights of all. 29. The State further maintains that Article 8, followed by Articles 70 and 92 of the Code of Military Justice (Law 3483 of February 13, 1953), establishes the procedure for compensation or review of a case that has been heard and judged by military courts, in a decision that has acquired the authority of res judicata, but that the parties have not availed themselves of that remedy to date. By virtue of the foregoing, it requests that the petition be declared inadmissible, since domestic remedies have not been exhausted. IV. ANALYSIS OF ADMISSIBILITY A. Jurisdiction of the Commission: temporis y ratione materiae ratione personae, ratione loci, ratione 30. The petitioners are authorized by Article 44 of the American Convention to lodge petitions on behalf of alleged victims in respect of whom the State has pledged to respect and guarantee the rights established in the American Convention. The Dominican Republic has been a State Party to the American Convention since April 19, 1978, the date on which it deposited its instrument of ratification. Thus the Commission has personal jurisdiction to examine the petition. 31. The Commission also has jurisdiction ratione loci to take cognizance of the petition, since it alleges violations of the rights protected in the American Convention that took place within the jurisdiction of the State. 32. The Commission has temporal jurisdiction to consider the complaint, since the obligation to respect and guarantee the rights protected in the American Convention was already in effect in the State on the date that the acts alleged in the petition occurred. 5