6 information" but that the supposed negotiation mentioned by the petitioners on the arrangements for their travel to Arica, Chile, did not take place. On this point, the state said that the National Immigration Service is not empowered to transfer citizens across the country, much less to a third country, in national police vehicles. The state said that in the absence of an official response from Chile, the petitioners were treated like any other foreigners who had entered the country in an irregular manner. 36. It said that on February 21, 2001, when the expulsion of Mrs. Tineo was about to be put into effect under Article 48 b) of Executive Decree 24423 of 1996, a fax was received from the CEB– UNHCR requesting Mrs. Tineo’s release. According to the state, the Department of inspections immediately ordered her release, even before a habeas corpus petition, in which she was a party "as if she were a refugee,” was decided in her favor. The state mentioned that following the decision on the habeas corpus petition, the purpose of which was limited to determining the lawfulness of the deprivation of liberty, the administrative procedure continued in accordance with the Legal Regime on Migration. 37. Regarding the expulsion, the state offered an account that differs substantially from that of the petitioners. According to the state, on February 24, 2001, Personnel from the National Immigration Service carried out the expulsion order for the Pacheco Tineo family, in keeping with the prosecutor's request and the legal regime on migration. It said that the individuals in charge of the expulsion were inspectors with the Department of Inspections and Bonds, with police support. It says that this was carried out in the presence of Mr. Juan Carlos Molina—though not at his direction—and that none of the people who executed the order were licensed to carry firearms. 38. The state added that the family was taken from the city of La Paz to El Desaguadero on the border. It said that, once there, the officials had to wait until the relevant immigration offices in Bolivia and Peru opened and that during that wait the Pacheco Tineo family was given food. According to the state, upon crossing the border the Pacheco Tineo were handed over to the Peruvian immigration authorities, not the Peruvian police. 39. The state said that the claims as to how the transfer and expulsion were carried out are untrue and that if they had been in any way attacked the alleged victims should have reported that circumstance to the Peruvian immigration and/or prosecutorial authorities, so that a medical examination could be performed on them. 40. Citing Article 1.1 c) of the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, 1951 (hereinafter the “1951 Convention”), the state underscored that the recognition of the refugee status cannot be manipulated or used arbitrarily, since the Pacheco Tineo family did not enter Bolivia in 2001 as refugees, but did so “illegally,” bearing in mind that, while in 1996 they had been granted refugee status, in March 1998 they requested their voluntary repatriation, which was without defect and, therefore, valid. The states added that upon entering Bolivia the Pacheco Tineo family did not produce the documents recognized in the 1951 Convention that enable persons who have been granted refugee status to travel. According to Bolivia, it was up to Chile to provide them with documents. According to the state, Bolivia cannot guarantee the refugee status that the alleged victims had in Chile. 41. Following a request from the Commission to the state for information as to whether or not the Pacheco Tineo family had presented a new application for asylum in Bolivia, the state informed the Commission that the communication from CEB-UNHCR, received on February 21, 2001, when the release of Mrs. Tineo Godos was requested, indicated that the Pacheco Tineo family were again applying for refugee status in Bolivia. In that regard, the state said that the fax was received in the morning and that that same afternoon the appropriate procedure was instituted before the competent local bodies. The state said that in the evening of February 21, 2001, the National Committee on Refugees (hereinafter “CONARE”) evaluated the application and found it inadmissible. Therefore, the presence of the family in Bolivian jurisdiction was "regularized and considered within the sphere of competence of the immigration authorities.” 42. According to the state, upon submitting the new application for refugee status, the applicants failed to present elements that could have been considered in the evaluation. It added that