it was decided to deny the request, because the Committee understood that, since the applicants had returned to Peru, the circumstances that gave rise to their seeking asylum in Bolivia had evidently ceased.. The migratory status in the country of the said Peruvian citizens was not considered by CONARE, since this is an exclusive faculty of the National Immigration Directorate and of the Ministry of the Interior.” 87. On February 21 also, at 4.45 p.m., Rumaldo Pacheco visited the offices of the Consulate General of Chile in La Paz, where he explained his family’s situation.92 Also, on the same date, the Consulate sent a “regular official message” to the Chilean Ministry of Foreign Affairs regarding the situation of Rumaldo Pacheco, stating that “today, the Immigration Service and UNHCR have informed [the Consulate] that UNHCR has applied to the Bolivian Government for refugee status. The UNCHR letter, which is attached, indicates the desire of the Pacheco family to go to Chile where they already have refugee status.” It also indicated that the “Bolivian Immigration Service has informed [the Consulate] that it would not grant refugee status to this family and that they would give them a prudential time to determine their place of residence.”93  February 22, 2001 88. At 3 p.m. on February 22, 2001, the hearing was opened on the application for habeas corpus filed in favor of Fredesvinda in the Ninth District Criminal Court.94 During the hearing, the applicant’s lawyer mentioned that, even though “immediately after [the application] had been filed, she had been released,” Bolivian law “established that the act against her person had already been committed, because this constitutional right had already been violated.”95 He added that the application was not “only for the continued freedom of the person he represented, but also for the termination of the harassment against her.”96 89. Thus, with Mrs. Tineo Godos having been released, on the same February 22, the Court issued ruling No. 22/2001, declaring admissible the application for habeas corpus filed against the Director of the Inspectorate and Residence Permit Directorate of the Immigration Service and the Director of the Judicial Technical Police, considering that they had not complied with the provisions of articles 225 to 228 of the Bolivian Code of Criminal Procedure, and that there had been a violation of articles 9 and 11 of the State’s Constitution. In addition, it established a sanction against the said authorities in the sum of 200 Bolivianos each for damages, under the Law of the Constitutional Court.97 There is no information on whether this element of the ruling was complied with. 90. One month later, on March 23, 2001, the Constitutional Court ruled on a review of the said decision of February 22, partially confirming the admissibility of the remedy based on the lack of competence of the immigration authorities to detain people and, consequently, the violation of article “9-I” of the Bolivian Constitution. However, it declared that the remedy was inadmissible with regard to the Director of the Judicial Technical Police, because it had not been proved that this authority authorized the applicant’s entry into the police cells, especially 92 Cf. 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). 93 Cf. Communication No. 115 CONGECHILE to DIGENCONSU dated February 21, 2001 (evidence file, folio 1523). 94 Cf. Report of the Director of SENAMIG to the Office of the Criminal Prosecutor of April 11, 2011 (evidence file, folio 83). See also: Record of the public hearing on habeas corpus issued by the Ninth District Criminal Court on February 22, 2001 (evidence file, folio 1007). 95 Cf. Record of the public hearing on habeas corpus issued by the Ninth District Criminal Court on February 22, 2001 (evidence file, folio 1008). 96 Cf. Judgment of the Constitutional Court No. 233/01 reviewing the decision that it ruled partially admissible on the application for habeas corpus filed on February 21, 2001 (evidence file, folios 72 and 73). 97 Cf. Decision of the Ninth District Criminal Court of La Paz of February 22, 2001 (evidence file, folios 58 and 59). 29