VII-1. RIGHT TO JUDICIAL GUARANTEES AND TO JUDICIAL PROTECTION IN RELATION TO FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT AND RESIDENCE IN CASES OF THE DEPORTATION OF MIGRANTS AND REQUESTS FOR REFUGEE STATUS A. Arguments of the Commission and of the parties A.1. Arguments of the Commission 115. The Commission observed, with regard to the proceedings relating to the deportation of the Pacheco Tineo family by SENAMIG, that they were not notified of the opening of an administrative proceeding against them; that they were not officially informed of the administrative charges that they were accused of under the Immigration Regime; that they were not given an opportunity to defend themselves and that they were not notified of the decision. It indicated that the decision taken on the admissibility of deportation was summary and made within an unreasonably short period, which prevented meeting the minimum guarantees of due process to which the Pacheco Tineo family had a right, and this prevented them from filing the appropriate administrative and/or judicial remedies. Owing to these facts, the Commission considered that the State was responsible for the violation of the right to be heard with due guarantees, to know the administrative charges against them, to defend themselves, to the possibility of the decision being reviewed, and to judicial protection, established in Articles 8(1), 8(2) and 25 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, to the detriment of the members of the Pacheco Tineo family. 116. The Commission also observed that no assessment was made in the deportation decision with regard to the country to which the family should be transferred, even though the child Juan Ricardo Pacheco Tineo was of Chilean nationality and that it had at least been indicated that the other members of the family had been granted refugee status in Chile. The Commission considered that the deportation of a family to its country of origin, in violation of the minimum guarantees of due process and knowing that the said family could have protection as refugees in a third country, was incompatible with the principle of non-refoulement established in Article 22(8) of the American Convention 117. Furthermore, the Commission considered that CONARE had denied the request for asylum in a summary manner, without hearing the applicants, so that the members of the Pacheco Tineo family did not have an opportunity to provide an explanation. In addition, it found that CONARE had not taken into account or assessed the possibility that the circumstances could have changed in February 2001. Under Article 22(7) and 22(8) of the American Convention, a voluntary repatriation in the past should not prevent a person from requesting asylum subsequently, so that the circumstances of potential danger of the applicants should receive a genuine assessment in all cases. In addition, the decision taken by CONARE was not notified, so that their situation could not be reviewed, and this affected their possibility of filing any judicial remedy. 118. The Commission emphasized that the summary action of CONARE rendered the most basic guarantees of due process meaningless. The applicants did not have an opportunity to explain their situation of protection in Chile, and CONARE did not assess that situation. Thus, owing to the actions of CONARE, the State not only acted in violation of the guarantees of due process and the right to seek and to be granted asylum, but failed to comply with the procedural obligations imposed by the principle of non-refoulement, by denying protection – by the consequent deportation – without making a genuine and appropriate assessment of the potential danger that the family faced in its country of origin. The Commission concluded that the State had violated the right to judicial guarantees, to seek and to be granted asylum, the principle of non-refoulement, and the right to judicial protection established in Articles 8(1), 38