I. INTRODUCTION OF THE CASE AND PURPOSE OF THE DISPUTE 1. The case submitted to the Court. On February 21, 2012, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Commission” or “the Commission”) submitted to the jurisdiction of the Court, under Articles 51 and 61 of the Convention, the case of the Pacheco Tineo family with regard to the Plurinational State of Bolivia (hereinafter also “the State” or “Bolivia”). The case refers to the alleged return of the Pacheco Tineo family from the State of Bolivia to the State of Peru on February 24, 2001, as a result of the denial of their request for recognition of refugee status in Bolivia, and of the decision to expel them adopted by the Bolivian immigration authorities. The members of the Pacheco Tineo family, consisting of Rumaldo Juan Pacheco Osco, his wife Fredesvinda Tineo Godos, and their children Juana Guadalupe, Frida Edith and Juan Ricardo Pacheco Tineo (the latter a Chilean national), had entered Bolivia on February 19, 2001. The immigration authorities noted their irregular situation and took measures in order to deport them to Peru. Meanwhile, Mr. Pacheco Osco asked the State to grant him and the members of his family refugee status. It is alleged that this requested was denied in a summary manner and in violation of various guarantees of due process of law, following which the members of the family were deported to Peru. 2. Proceedings before the Commission. The proceedings before the Commission were as follows: a. Petition. On April 25, 2002, Rumaldo Juan Pacheco Osco and Fredesvinda Tineo Godos, on behalf of themselves and their children, Frida Edith, Juana Guadalupe and Juan Ricardo Pacheco Tineo (hereinafter “the petitioners” or “the presumed victims”) lodged the initial petition before the Commission (No. 301-02); b. Admissibility Report. On October 13, 2004, the Commission approved Admissibility Report No. 53/04;1 c. Merits Report. On October 31, 2011, the Commission approved Merits Report 136/11,2 pursuant to Article 50 of the Convention (hereinafter also “the Merits Report” or “Report No. 136/11”), in which it reached the following conclusions and made the following recommendations to the State: i. Conclusions. The Commission concluded that: 1. Based on the principle of subsidiarity, it was not in order to rule on the possible violation of the right to personal liberty of Fredesvinda Tineo Godos. 2. The State of Bolivia was responsible for the violation of the rights to judicial guarantees and to request asylum, and the guarantee of non-refoulement, recognized in Articles 8, 22(7) and 22(8) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, to the detriment of Rumaldo Juan Pacheco Osco, Fredesvinda Tineo Godos, their daughters Frida Edith and Juana Guadalupe, and their son Juan Ricardo, all with the surnames Pacheco Tineo. 3. Under the iura novit curia principle, the State of Bolivia was responsible for the violation of the right to judicial protection, recognized in Article 25 of the American Convention in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, to the detriment of Rumaldo Juan Pacheco Osco, Fredesvinda Tineo Godos, their daughters Frida Edith and Juana Guadalupe, and their son Juan Ricardo, all three with the surnames Pacheco Tineo. 1 In this report, the Commission decided that the case was “admissible in relation to Articles 1(1), 5, 7, 8, 17(1), 19 and 22 of the American Convention.” Cf. IACHR, Admissibility Report No. 53/04 (Admissibility), Petition 301-02, Rumaldo Juan Pacheco Osco, Frida Pacheco Tineo, Juana Guadalupe and Juan Ricardo Pacheco Tineo, Bolivia, October 13, 2004. 2 53). Merits Report No. 136/11, Case 12,474, Pacheco Tineo family, Bolivia, October 31, 2011 (merits file, folios 6 to 4