7 bearing in mind the time elapsed between the voluntary repatriation and the new application, "the case suggested a cessation of refugee status through a personal decision.” 43. The state pointed out that people have the opportunity to claim protection as refugees based on convincing motives, providing such evidence as they are able, even though they might have previously decided to return to their country of origin but not with that status, in order to avoid being returned to immigration authorities in the country of origin. In this regard, the state cited the UNHCR Note on Fair and Efficient Asylum Procedures, based on which it is acceptable for abusive or fraudulent claims to be processed under accelerated procedures as they give rise to a presumption of unfoundedness. 44. The State said that there is a contradiction between the alleged "fear of persecution," on which, according to the CEB-UNHCR, the request for protection in Bolivia was based, and the account provided by the petitioners to the IACHR where they said that they went to the National Immigration Service to conduct "foreign status procedures” and, in light of the outrage suffered, presented a new application for refugee status "as an act of self-defense.” The state argued that the petitioners had misinterpreted the institution of asylum since they are not covered by any of the definitions, either in the 1951 Convention or in the Cartagena Declaration on Refugees, 1984 (hereinafter “the Cartagena Declaration”). 45. In conclusion, the state indicated that the family did not have refugee status in Bolivia, nor did it have a justified fear of being returned to the Republic of Peru, and that that it merely used the institution of refuge to avoid being expelled from Bolivia for having evaded the immigration controls in Peru, Chile, and Bolivia. 46. The following is a summary of the legal arguments put forward by the state. As to the alleged violation of the right to freedom of movement and residence, the state claimed that that right applies to persons who enter the territory of a country legally. Therefore, it argued, in light of the fact that the Pacheco Tineo family did not make clear their intention to apply again for recognition of their refugee status upon entering Bolivia in February 2001, nor provide documents attesting to their status as refugees in Chile, nor have passports that had been stamped at the respective immigration controls in Peru, Chile, and Bolivia, competence to deal with the situation belonged to the immigration authorities. 47. As to the alleged violation of the right to humane treatment, the state held that the the handover of the family to the immigration authorities was carried out in keeping in with institutional procedures and by the appropriate officials in the area of immigration. 48. As for the alleged violation of the right to personal liberty, the state argued that the detention of Fredesvinda Tineo Godos was remedied at the domestic level since the habeas corpus petition was admitted even before Mrs. Tineo Godos was released. In the opinion of the state, it met its international obligation to cause to cease a situation that violated rights and order appropriate reparation, as established by the judgment on the habeas corpus petition. 49. Regarding the alleged violation of the right to a fair trial, the state said that the habeas corpus proceeding was instituted and processed in a timely fashion. The state added that Mrs. Tineo Godos was given a “hearing within a reasonable time and with due guarantees, under equal conditions,” and that she was assisted by expert counsel from the Permanent Human Rights Assembly. 50. With regard to the alleged violation of the obligation to provide special protection to children, the state said the Pacheco Tineo children were transferred to immigration authorities "together with their parents and in accordance with the logistical means available to said authorities.” With respect to the alleged violation of the right to protection of the family, Bolivia said that as the "receiving state" it recognized refugee status to the family in keeping with the principle of family unity. It also said that during the return the family group was not separated. IV. ESTABLISHED FACTS