February 3 and 19, 2001. However, according to the presumed victims, during those days the Pacheco Tineo family entered Peru in order to negotiate their possible return to their country of birth, update their professional documents, check on some investments they had in Peru, and take steps to find employment.65 In this regard, a document of the presumed victims entitled “events in the life of the Pacheco Tineo family” indicates: “2001: Uneventful trip to Lima by land, but with great tension; university procedures to obtain the diploma as a psychologist; contact with the “Santa Rosa” Hospital to request reinstatement in employment; measures taken with the Azucarera Andahuasi to opt for employment as son and brother of members, which were favorable for our career path – good relations and contacts with the managers – and, above all, for the interest in our broad curriculum. Contacts with the Asociación Pro-vivienda “Villa Sur” of the health sector workers, obtaining acceptance of reinstatement. Contact with lawyer who obtained our release in 1994, who indicated that our legal situation is risky because the arrest warrant issued has not been annulled, and the case has not been archived.66 C. Facts that occurred between February 19 and 24, 2001. Second entry of the Pacheco Tineo family into Bolivia. New application for refugee status in Bolivia. Deportation to Peru  February 19, 2001 C.1 Entry into Bolivia 74. The Pacheco Tineo family entered Bolivia on February 19, 2001, from Peru. The fact that they crossed the border between Peru and Bolivia without passing through immigration control for entry into Bolivia or, at least, that their entry was not officialized by a stamp in their passports, is not in dispute.67 Although the State of Bolivia alleges that none of the passports had a stamp of departure from or entry into Chile, Peru and Bolivia, the passports of Rumaldo Pacheco and Fredesvinda Tineo contain the departure stamp from Chile dated February 3, 2001, and, as indicated, they entered Peru with their Peruvian identity cards, so that the only stamp that they do not have is that of entry into Bolivia. 75. During the proceedings before the Commission and during the hearing before this Court, the presumed victims stated that the reason for their new entry into Bolivia was to take steps to obtain documents proving their university studies in 1995 and 1998, while they had benefited from refugee status in that country. They added that they had left Peru on realizing that they were still at risk in that country, because, according to information provided by their lawyer in Peru, the decision ordering their detention had not been annulled and the case had not been closed.68 Fredesvinda Tineo also stated that they entered Bolivia by that border, and did not go directly to Chile, because on leaving Peru they had to hand over their documentation: their 65 2013 Statement made by Rumaldo Pacheco before the Inter-American Court at the public hearing held on March 20, 66 In addition, according to a statement made by Rumaldo Pacheco Osco before the Chilean Consulate in La Paz, when he went there on February 21, 2001: “They were in Chile until February 2, 2001; on February 3 they left Chile with Peruvian passports; he and his family entered Peru via Tacna with their Peruvian identity cards, without any problems on entry; the same day they travelled to Lima and stayed at a hotel for a week; the second day in Lima he consulted the Peruvian human rights agency about his situation and was told that a warrant had been issued for his arrest because he had been a member of subversive groups and was guilty of unlawful association since 1991. […] He had family members [both parents] in Huacho, to the north of Lima; they stayed with his parents for several days […]. They began to take the necessary measures with the university (they are both psychologists) to obtain their diplomas, but this was not possible because they needed to do one more year of courses and present a thesis.” Text “Situation of the Peruvian refugee Romualdo Pacheco Osco and family” issued by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile” (evidence file, folio 1528). See also: Communication No. 116 of CONGECHILE La Paz to DIGENCONSU dated February 21, 2001 (evidence file, folio 1527). 67 Cf. Copy of passports of Rumaldo Pacheco and Fredesvinda Tineo (evidence file, folios 7 to 16 and 25 to 32). 68 Cf. Letter of Rumaldo Pacheco to the IACHR dated January 9, 2008 (evidence file, no folio number). See also: Statement made by Fredesvinda Tineo before the Inter-American Court at the public hearing held on March 20, 2013. 24