REPORT No. 136/11
CASE 12.474
MERITS
MEMBERS OF THE PACHECO TINEO FAMILY
BOLIVIA
October 31, 2011

I.

SUMMARY

1.
On April 25, 2002, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter the
“Inter-American Commission”, “Commission,” or “IACHR”) received a petition, lodged by Mr. Rumaldo
Juan Pacheco Osco, on his own behalf, that of his wife, Fredesvinda Tineo Godos, and that their children,
Frida Edith, Juana Guadalupe, and Juan Ricardo Pacheco Tineo, all of them minors, (hereinafter “the
petitioners”), which alleged violation of the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter the
“American Convention” or “Convention”) by the Republic of Bolivia (hereinafter the "Bolivian state,” “the
state,” or “Bolivia”) as a consequence of the events that surrounded their entry to and expulsion from
Bolivia, between February 19 and 24, 2001.
2.
According to the petitioners, all of whom are Peruvian nationals, except for the youngest
child, Juan Ricardo Pacheco Tineo, who has Chilean nationality, after they entered Bolivia and went to the
National Immigration Service (hereinafter “SENAMIG”), the Bolivian immigration authorities withheld their
documents, arbitrarily detained Mrs. Fredesvinda Tineo Godos, failed adequately to review their new
1
application for recognition of refugee status, and then proceeded to expel them to Peru on February 24,
2001, using violence and putting them at risk in said country. The petitioners also say that some years
earlier the state of Bolivia recognized their status as refugees, after which they requested their repatriation
to Peru owing to their precarious situation in Bolivia, and that subsequently they were granted refugee
status in Chile.
3.
For its part, the state contested several of the facts narrated by the petitioners and argued
that it was not in violation of the American Convention since the Pacheco Tineo family was returned to Peru
because they had illegally entered Bolivia, where they were no longer recognized as refugees because they
had sought voluntary repatriation three years previously. Furthermore, the state says that the Pacheco
Tineo family did not demonstrate to the Bolivian authorities that they had refugee status in Chile, and that
neither did they present sufficient evidence to support their new application for recognition of refugee status
in Bolivia. As for the detention of Mrs. Tineo Godos, the state mentioned that this situation was remedied
through the habeas corpus petition that was decided in her favor.
4.
Having examined the positions of the parties, the Inter-American Commission has
concluded that the State of Bolivia is responsible for the violation of the right to a fair trial, the right to seek
and be granted asylum, the principle of non refoulement, and the right to humane treatment (respect for
mental and moral integrity) recognized in Articles 8, 22(7), 22(8) and 5(1) of the American Convention,
taken in conjunction with Article 1(1) of that instrument, to the detriment of Rumaldo Juan Pacheco Osco;
Fredesvinda Tineo Godos; and the minors Frida Edith, Juana Guadalupe, and Juan Ricardo Pacheco
Tineo. By virtue of the principle iura novit curia, the Commission also concluded that the State of Bolivia is
responsible for the violation of the right to judicial protection established in Article 25 of the American
2
Convention, in conjunction with article 1.1 of the said instrument , to the detriment of Rumaldo Juan
Pacheco Osco, Fredesvinda Tineo Godos; and the minors Frida Edith, Juana Guadalupe and Juan
1
In the course of the proceedings the parties have indistinctly used the terms “application for refuge,” “request for
asylum,” and "request for protection,” among others. The Commission has also noted that the domestic legislation distinguishes
between asylum and the acknowledgment of the refugee status. Under the applicable international law the case concerns an
application for asylum or for recognition of refugee status and therefore, throughout this report the Commission will use these
expressions indistinctively.
2
The Commission includes this Article base don the understanding that the State has knowledge of the facts in which the
analysis is based and had the procedural opportunity to present arguments regarding those facts. This inclusion is also relevant to
ensure consistency with respect to other cases.

Select target paragraph3