considering that she had been detained in cells of the Police Command, and not of the Judicial Technical Police.98 The Constitutional Court set out the following grounds, among others: That it should be established that aliens must recall that, in Bolivia, extra-territorial rights may only be enjoyed by duly accredit diplomatic and consular officers, and officials of international organizations, who appear as such in the records of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Worship of Bolivia, which is not the case of the applicant and, consequently, she is subject to the laws in force in the country. That the applicant has systematically violated the immigration laws in Bolivia, without respecting the laws of three countries, and has also made a mockery of the norms in force for refugees, repeatedly entering and leaving Bolivia, Peru and Chile, clandestinely, which is not admissible for individuals who say that they have been persecuted for political reasons, particularly as, according to the Sworn Statement on Voluntary Repatriation of March 5, 1998, […] the applicant lost her refugee status in Bolivia as of that date. That the immigration authorities have the power, among others, to control aliens who are in transit on national territory, and those who enjoy temporary stays or permanent residence, and these authorities have been expressly empowered to deport them in the circumstances described in art. 48 of Supreme Decree No. 24423, with the exception established in paragraph (j) which has been declared unconstitutional by this Court in Constitutional Ruling No. 004/2001 of January 5, 2001; however, they do not have the power to order anyone’s detention. That, in the instant case, the defendant National Director of Inspection and Immigration, by ordering the detention of the applicant in Police cells as a “surety” on February 21 this year at 5 p.m., without having the authority to do so, violated the provisions of article 9-1 of the Constitution, without the fact that he ordered the release of the applicant the following day on becoming aware that the applicant and her family had once again requested refugee status, mitigating the defendant’s illegal action. 91. That same February 22, Juan Carlos Molina, then Chief Adviser on Migratory Affairs, presented a report to Oscar Ángel Jordán Bacigalupo, Director of the National Immigration Service, with information on the facts relating to the Pacheco Tineo family. In the document, Mr. Molina mentioned the facts described above, and the following: We have certified documents indicating that “arrest warrants have been issued by the Special Correctional Court of Lima for the crime of terrorism” against Mr. Pacheco Tineo and Mrs. Fredesvinda Godos; They have asked the immigration authorities to let them pass through Bolivia or to take them to Chile, and “for this reason a telephone call was made to the Chilean Consul and Ambassador. No official response was receive indicating that the family could enter Chile [and,] therefore, these persons were treated in the same way as any alien who enters the country illegally”; […] On Wednesday, 21, when the deportation was about to be implemented, a fax was received indicating that they would once again be requesting refugee status in Bolivia; […] in the afternoon [of February 21,] CONARE met and decided to deny the request”; […] Migration authorities and the PTJ have been sued for undue detention (habeas corpus). The Peruvians have come forward to request exiting the country to Chile, but since no decision has been received in this regard from the Chilean authorities and owing to the complaint, the return of their passports was refused. They reacted violently to this, insulting me with words that I cannot include here, and had to be removed from the immigration offices with the aid of members of the National Police. Based on foregoing, I wish to inform you of the following:  CONARE certifies that the Pacheco Tineo family; ARE NOT REFUGEES.  It includes minors (their children), who have also been travelling illegally through Chilean, Peruvian and now Bolivian territory.  At this date and time (5.30 p.m.) no official response has been received from the Chilean authorities.  The application of the Peruvian family is irregular, because how can we allow them to exit Bolivia, if they never entered the country?  What would be the reaction of the Chilean Immigration authorities when these Peruvian persons “appear” on their border”? 98 Cf. Judgment of the Constitutional Court No. 233/01 reviewing the decision that it ruled partially admissible the application for habeas corpus filed on February 21, 2001 [evidence file, folios 72 and 73]. 30