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.