36 Pacheco Tineo family during the journey on February 24, 2001, from La Paz to the border zone of El Desaguadero. 167. Having said that, the Commission notes from the established facts that it would be fair to say that the members of the Pacheco Tineo family were expelled in a situation of complete uncertainty regarding the outcome of the new application for recognition of refugee status and regarding the possibilities of invoking any remedy in that respect. It is also reasonable to surmise that Rumaldo Juan Pacheco Osco and Fredesvinda Tineo Godos, on being taken to the border with Peru just hours before they were due to get on a bus that would take them to Chile, a country where they had already been granted protection as refugees, were in a state of distress and fear at the prospect of the deprivation of liberty that in all likelihood awaited them in their country of origin, as well as the resulting separation from their young children. By the same token, in these circumstances, and given the young age of the children Frida Edith, Juana Guadalupe, and Juan Ricardo, it is reasonable to infer that they felt afraid and defenseless during the transfer and expulsion. It is also reasonable to infer that the children were suffering because of what might happen to their parents as a result of these events. 168. Although, in the context of a country's immigration policy the transfer and subsequent delivery of a person to another country may be consistent with the international obligations of that state and, therefore, any feelings of frustration or fear that might arise would not be attributable to the state in question, in the instant case the transfer and expulsion occurred as a result of proceedings which, as has been determined above, were arbitrary and in violation of various provisions contained in the American Convention. Accordingly, the distress and fear which, as noted in the foregoing paragraph, it is reasonable to infer were suffered by every member of the family during the transfer and expulsion, are attributable to the state of Bolivia. 169. Consequently, the Commission finds that it does not have sufficient information to conclude that the state violated the right of the members of the Pacheco Tineo family to have their physical integrity respected. However, the Commission finds that there is sufficient evidence to conclude that the Bolivian state violated the right to mental and moral integrity enshrined in article 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 Frida Edith, Juana Guadalupe, and Juan Ricardo Pacheco Tineo. D. The obligation to provide special protection to children and the right to protection of the family (articles 19 and 17 of the American Convention) 170. Article 19 of the American Convention states that: Every minor child has the right to the measures of protection required by his condition as a minor on the part of his family, society, and the state. 171. Article 17(1) of the American Convention provides: The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the state. 172. Pursuant to article 19 of the American Convention, states have a duty to observe a particularly high standard in all matters related to the guarantee and protection of the human rights of children. Respect for the rights of the child is a fundamental value in a society that claims to practice 138 social justice and observe human rights. 173. By the Court’s case law, Article 19 of the American Convention should be understood as a complementary right that the Convention establishes for individuals who need special measures of 138 IACHR, Report No. 33/04, Case 11.634, Merits, Jailton Neri Fonseca (Brazil), March 11, 2004, par. 80.