20 95. After the expulsion, international organizations and Bolivian authorities followed events. 96. Thus, for example, Amnesty International requested the Government of Bolivia for "an explanation for handing over a family of Peruvian refugees to the Lima authorities in an alleged violation" 80 of international refugee law. 97. On March 5, 2001, the Secretariado para Migrantes y Refugiados filed a complaint with the Ombudsman of Bolivia, alleging that the Pacheco Tineo family had been arbitrarily expelled from 81 Bolivia. In response to that complaint, the Ombudsman sent a communication on March 19, 2001, stating that "since the petitioners had obtained refugee status in Chile, it was up to their defense counsel 82 to uphold the status of his clients before the legal authorities.” 98. On March 30, 2001, the Human Rights Committee of the House of Deputies requested a report on these events from the Vice Ministry of the Interior and Police, in reaction to a complaint filed by 83 the Permanent Human Rights Assembly. That same day, the Chief of the Human Rights Unit sent a report to the Vice Minister for Human Rights in which he provides an account of the facts and specifies that the Vice Minister had said at the time that if the Pacheco Tineo family was to be expelled, then they 84 should be expelled to Chile, which concern was brought to the attention of the CONARE. 99. On April 9, 2001, the Office of the Director of the SENAMIG submitted a report to the Ministry of the Interior, recounting the events, from the visit of the Pacheco Tineo family to the immigration 85 offices, to their expulsion. 100. That same day, April 9, 2001, at the behest of the Human Rights Committee of the House of Deputies, the Office of the Attorney General requested a report from the Director of the National 86 Immigration Service. That request mentions that the Special Operations Division of the Departmental Directorate of the Judicial Investigation Police “is conducting an ex officio inquiry” in connection with the 87 arbitrary and improper detention of the Pacheco Tineo family. This request was responded to with a report dated April 11, 2001, which provides an account of the events and mentions the existence of a 88 Constitutional Court judgment in this connection. 101. The Commission has no information about the outcome of this ex officio inquiry. 80 Appendix 2. Cadena Peruana de Noticias, press release of March 13, 2001 (appended to the petitioners’ brief received on December 27, 2002). 81 Appendix 25. Complaint of the Secretariado para Migrantes y Refugiados to the Ombudsman of Bolivia of March 5, 82 Appendix 26. Response of the Ombudsman to the Secretariado para Migrantes y Refugiados of March 19, 2001. 2001. 83 Appendix 19. Request for a report from the Human Rights Committee of the House of Deputies of March 30, 2001 (appended to the state’s brief received on December 23, 2004. This document is partially illegible); and 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). 84 Appendix 20. Report to the Vice Minister for Human Rights of March 30, 2001 (appended to the state’s brief received on December 23, 2004). 85 Appendix 23. Report to the Ministry of the Interior of April 9, 2001 (appended to the state’s brief received on December 23, 2004). 86 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). 87 Appendix 21. Request for a report from La Paz Criminal Prosecutor's Office of April 9, 2001 (appended to the state’s brief received on December 23, 2004). 88 Appendix 22. Report from the Office of the Director of the SENAMIG to the Office of the Prosecutor for Criminal Matters dated April 11, 2001 (appended to the state’s brief received on December 23, 2004).