18 Upon analysis of the background information, it was found that on March 5, 1998, the above Peruvian citizens gave a sworn statement of voluntary repatriation to their country and, therefore, implicitly renounced their refugee status; therefore, it was decided to dismiss the application because, in the opinion of the Commission, as the applicants had returned to Peru, the conditions that gave rise to their refuge in Bolivia had clearly ceased. Given that it was the exclusive competence of the Immigration Department of the Ministry of the Interior, the CONARE did not consider the immigration status in the country of the said Peruvian 65 citizens. 87. The information available indicates that this meeting was held without the Pacheco Tineo family or their representatives in attendance. Nor is there information by which to determine the nature of the proceedings; for example, if the decision was an administrative one open to appeal. The information available suggests that the Pacheco Tineo family was expelled from Bolivia without knowing that their new application had been rejected. 4. The expulsion of the Tineo Godos family to Peru on February 24, 2001 88. In the wake of this rejection and of the release of Fredesvinda Tineo Godos, the case 66 was brought to the attention of the Office of the Attorney General. On February 23, 2001, a prosecutor from La Paz District Prosecutor’s Office issued a request to the SENAMIG soliciting the expulsion of the Pacheco Tineo family. This request states: (…) Inasmuch as they have not shown that they entered the country legally, the individuals who answer to the names of RUMALDO JUAN PACHECO OSCO, FREDESVINDA TINEO GODOS, FRIDA EDITH PACHECO TINEO, JUANA GUADALUPE PACHECO PINEDO [sic] AND JUAN RICARDO PACHECO TINEO, the first being Peruvians, and the last, Chilean; who, having no type of documentation at this time and having lost their status as refugees, it is incumbent upon your authority to order that they be expelled from the country, in accordance with the country's 67 immigration laws. 89. That same day, February 23, 2001, the SENAMIG issued resolution No. 136/2001 by which, “pursuant to the prosecutor's request and insofar as they are illegal aliens in violation of the immigration laws in force" and, under article 48 of Executive Decree 24423, it resolved "to expel [the Pacheco Tineo family] from the national territory.” The above task was assigned to the Department of 68 Inspections of the Department of Inspections and Immigration Bonds of the SENAMIG. 90. The Pacheco Tineo family had bus tickets issued by the company Trasporte Internacional 69 y Turismo to travel from La Paz to Arica, Chile. 91. On February 24, 2001, Rumaldo Juan Pacheco Osco and Fredesvinda Tineo Godos, 70 together with their three children, all of them minors, were expelled from Bolivia by the SENAMIG, “in 65 Appendix 35. Minutes of the meeting of the CONARE of February 21, 2001 (Appendix to the state’s brief of July 9, 2008). 66 Appendix 5. Report of the former General Advisor on Immigration to the Legal Director of the National Immigration Service (appended to the state’s brief received on December 23, 2004). 67 Appendix 14. Prosecutor's Request from La Paz District Prosecutor’s Office of February 23, 2000 [sic] (appended to the state’s brief received on December 23, 2004). 68 Appendix 15. SENAMIG resolution No. 136/2001, February 23, 2001 (appended to the state’s brief received on December 23, 2004). There is another copy of this resolution with a number of differences in form on which there appears the signature of an official of the “Desaguadero Immigration Office.” This copy of the resolution bears an exit stamp dated February 24, 2001, that says “Desaguadero”. See Appendix 16. Copy of SENAMIG resolution No. 136/2001, February 23, 2001, with a number of differences in form and stamped “Desaguadero” (appended to the state’s brief received on December 23, 2004). 69 Appendix 33. Bus tickets from the company Trasporte Internacional y Turismo (appended to the petitioners' brief received on January 30, 2007).