5 28. They said that in Lima they were in the custody of the investigations police and that they were held incommunicado in uncomfortable cells until March 6, 2001, in the case of Fredesvinda Tineo Godos, and until March 8, 2001, in the case of Rumaldo Juan Pacheco Osco. They said that they were then moved to Santa Mónica Prison, in Chorrillos, and Miguel Castro Castro Prison, respectively. They said that both prisons are maximum-security facilities and, therefore, the inmates are subjected to severe restrictions on their human rights, which led to a decline in the physical and mental health of the alleged victims. 29. They added that they remained in detention until July 3, 2001, after it was demonstrated that the charges brought by the police in June 1991 were unfounded. 30. In general terms, with respect to the events that transpired between their entry to Bolivia on February 19, 2001, and their expulsion on February 24, 2001, the petitioners claimed that they were not given “the slightest opportunity to mount a defense.” They also said that they did not report the attacks sustained because their attention was focused on their children and, therefore, they considered that filing lawsuits was beyond them. Finally, they said that they had not abused the refugee status application procedure and that any formalities they had pursued did not warrant their “abduction and forcible delivery to the authorities of a country where their lives, security, and integrity were at risk.” 31. At different times in these proceedings, the petitioners have mentioned the difficulty of providing many documents supporting their petition. Specifically in this regard, they stated that several documents were taken from them at the time of their expulsion from Bolivia. Furthermore, they mentioned that they were unable to pursue many formalities in Bolivia precisely because they had been expelled from the country. B. The State 32. In its first communication, received on December 23, 2004, the Bolivian state presented a report that was addressed, not to the Commission, but to the Legal Director of the National Immigration Service, and formulated by Mr. Juan Carlos Molina, former General Advisor on Immigration, in his defense. Nevertheless, for the purposes of this proceeding before the Commission this communication is regarded as the state's response. 33. In its initial communication the state contested several of the facts described by the petitioners. Regarding the entry on February 19, 2001, the state said that although the Pacheco Tineo family had identity documents, none of the passports had entry or departure stamps from the immigration authorities of Chile, Peru, and Bolivia, for which reason he believed it "obvious" that they had entered Bolivia “illegally," evading and making a mockery of the mandatory border controls in both Peru and Bolivia. According to the state, Rumaldo Juan Pacheco Osco and Fredesvinda Tineo Godos had gone to the offices of the National Immigration Service on February 20, 2001, in order to request that "they be allowed to cross Bolivian territory into Chile” or that the National Immigration Service of Bolivia take them to that country. 34. The state claimed that at no time did the petitioners demonstrate that they were refugees and that the immigration office had evidence that they had requested their voluntary repatriation in March 1998. The state said that when it was found that Mrs. Fredesvinda Tineo Godos had broken the Bolivian immigration laws she was taken under arrest by the Department of Inspections to the offices of the national police with a view to her expulsion from Bolivia the next day; that is, February 21, 2001. As to the family’s documents, the state said that the possession of the passports was the responsibility of the Department of Inspections and Immigration Bonds in view of the fact that those documents “were not in order.” 35. The state added that the Chilean consul was contacted by telephone but that no official response was forthcoming regarding the possibility of their entry to Chile. Subsequently, the state said that officials from the Chilean consulate in La Paz went to the immigration offices "simply to obtain