that time, the President indicated that the Court would await the document which was transmitted by the expert witness on March 29, 2013, as a “written presentation” of the opinion he gave during the hearing, “in which more detailed information was provided on the subject of the proposed expert opinion based on the questions asked.” A few days previously, on March 25, 2013, the State had requested “a reasonable time period” to rule on the presentation of the written opinion of Juan Carlos Murillo. In fact, when this was forwarded, on the instructions of the President of the Court the parties and the Commission were advised that, if they considered it pertinent, they could present their observations on the said documentation with their final written arguments and observations. At this last moment, the State asked that “the written document be rejected, because the expert opinion had already been provided sufficiently during the hearing,” and that, if it decided to consider the said brief, the Court should reject “everything that was not included in the real purpose of the expert opinion.” The Commission asked the Court, in keeping with its practice, to admit the written expansion of the opinion provided by Mr. Murillo, because it would be very useful for deciding the case, and its acceptance had no effect on the adversarial principle or on the procedural balance between the parties. 64. The Court considers that, in fact, the opinion provided by the expert witness was the one rendered during the hearing, which has already been admitted. Meanwhile, the written document provided some time later, and regarding which the parties had had the opportunity to exercise their right of defense, complemented the said expert opinion on issues that were part of its purpose, so that the Court finds that it is part of the opinion and incorporates it into the file of this case considering that it will be useful for deciding the case, and taking into consideration the pertinent observations of the parties in relation to its assessment. VI. FACTS A. The Pacheco Tineo family 65. The Pacheco Tineo family consists of: (a) Rumaldo Juan Pacheco Osco, born on September 7, 1962, in Lima, Peru; (b) Fredesvinda Tineo Godos, born on September 6, 1959, in Piura, Peru; (c) Frida Edith Pacheco Tineo, born on December 21, 1990, in Peru; (d) Juana Guadalupe Pacheco Tineo, born on August 10, 1995, in Peru, and (e) Juan Ricardo Pacheco Tineo, born on June 11, 1999, in Chile. B. Background information: entry into Bolivia in 1995, granting of refugee status in 1996, and residence in Bolivia until March 1998 66. The Commission advised that, at the beginning of the 1990s, Rumaldo Pacheco and Fredesvinda Tineo were tried in Peru for supposed crimes of terrorism. They were both detained in Peru and were victims of the violation of their right to humane treatment owing to acts that occurred in May 1992 that were examined by the Inter-American Court in the case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru.48 Subsequently, in 1994, they were released after having been acquitted in the said proceedings. 67. On October 13, 1995, Rumaldo Pacheco and Fredesvinda Tineo entered Bolivia, via La Paz,49 together with their two daughters. They stated that they had entered Bolivia because they had been advised that a warrant had been issued for their arrest in Peru, owing to the 48 Cf. Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160 49 Cf. Copy of the passports of Rumaldo Pacheco and Fredesvinda Tineo (evidence file, folios 9 and 28). 21