3 13. By way of background information, the petitioners said that the family entered Bolivia in October 1995 after receiving information that the acquittal of the charge of terrorism for which they were on trial in Peru had been set aside by the Supreme Court of Justice and, consequently, there was a warrant out for their arrest. They said that on that occasion the Center for Studies and Specialized Services on Involuntary Migration (hereinafter “CESEM”) and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (hereinafter “the UNHCR”) in Bolivia handled their claim for refugee status with the Bolivian authorities, which resulted in recognition of their status as refugees in 1996. 14. They mentioned that between 1995 and 1998, when they signed, under pressure, a "statement of voluntary repatriation" to Peru, and they were "mistreated and denied" their human rights "as asylum-seekers.” They added that they did not have identity documents that accredited recognition of their status and, therefore, had no rights in Bolivia, were unable to work or study, and depended on CESEM for economic aid. In the words of the petitioners, “We were kept without any documents whatsoever until March 1998, when a courtesy visa was stamped in our passports (...) which did not enable us to exercise any of our rights other than to stay legally in Bolivia.” They said that as a result of this situation they decided in that month in 1998 to leave Bolivia because of the limited nature of the assistance received and their lack of identity documents. With regard to the "statement of voluntary repatriation,” the petitioners said, “We were forced to sign a statement in which we wrote down the compelling reasons that obliged us to do so, and we told them verbally that we were holding them responsible for anything that happened to our family. They mocked us.” 15. The petitioners said that, in fact, after signing that statement, they did not return to Peru but attempted a "new and risky exodus to find decent asylum (…) in Chile," in order to contact the Australian embassy, since they were also in the process of applying there for a “visa on humanitarian grounds." Finally, the petitioners said that in view of their circumstances the Chilean state granted them refugee status. 16. As regards the specific facts that prompted the petition to the Commission; that is, the events that occurred between February 19 and 24, 2001, the petitioners said that on February 19, 2001, they traveled to La Paz, Bolivia, accompanied by their three children, Juana Guadalupe, Frida Edith, and Juan Ricardo Pacheco Tineo (the last, a Chilean national) with the following documents: passports, Chilean and Peruvian identity documents, birth certificates, and professional credentials. They said that by then they had been granted refugee status in Chile and were residents in the country. 17. According to the petitioners they reached La Paz at 11:00 p.m. the same day and that the following morning at approximately 10:00 a.m. they went to “immigration,” while their three children remained in the care of some Bolivian friends. By the petitioners’ account, Mr. Pacheco Osco and Mrs. Tineo Godos were seen by Mr. Juan Carlos Molina, Chief of Immigration and General Advisor, who made offensive remarks about their situation and proffered threats against their physical, moral, and psychological integrity. 18. They said that, in spite of the fact that said official confirmed through the Chilean consul in La Paz that the alleged victims were resident in Chile, "he violently ordered” the doors of his office closed, “abducted” Fredesvinda Tineo Godos, and forcibly relieved the alleged victims of the family’s personal documents. They specified that some minutes before this turn of events, Rumaldo Juan Pacheco Osco had “managed” to leave the office to make a telephone call, a fact which, according to the above official, prevented his arrest and immediate expulsion. 19. The petitioners went on to say that Mrs. Fredesvinda Tineo Godos was taken at 6:00 p.m. to the holding cells of La Paz police headquarters without either food or warm clothing, without being told the reason for her arrest, and without being informed of her rights. They added that she was not permitted to contact anyone who could act in her defense and that at 8:00 p.m. Mr. Pacheco Osco located her and attempted to secure her release through the intervention of a lawyer from the La Paz Permanent Human Rights Assembly (hereinafter “the APDH”).