4. The State of Bolivia did not violate the right to physical integrity recognized in Article 5 of the American Convention, to the detriment of the Pacheco Tineo family. 5. The State of Bolivia had violated the right to mental and moral integrity recognized in Article 5(1) 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 last name Pacheco Tineo. 6. The State of Bolivia was responsible for the violation of the obligation to provide special protection to children, recognized in Article 19 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument. 7. It was not necessary to rule on the alleged violation of the rights of the family, recognized in Article 17 of the American Convention. ii. Recommendations. The Commission recommended that the State: 1. Provide integral reparation in favor of the members of the Pacheco Tineo family for the human rights violations declared in the report. This reparation should include compensation for the pecuniary and nonpecuniary damage suffered. The presence of the Pacheco Tineo family in another country should not be considered an obstacle for complying with this recommendation. The Bolivian State must take the necessary diplomatic and consular measures required to implement this reparation. 2. Order administrative, disciplinary or other types of measure to deal with the acts and omissions of the State officials who took part in the human rights violations declared in the report. 3. Adopt measures of non-repetition that include training officials in charge of immigration proceedings that could result in the deportation or expulsion of migrants, as well as procedures to determine refugee status. This training should include the standards described in the Merits Report. The State must also adopt other measures of non-repetition in order to ensure that the practices of the internal authorities in these two areas are compatible with the American Convention, as described in the report. d. Notification of the State. On November 21, 2004, the Commission notified this report to the State and granted it two month to provide information on compliance with the recommendations. e. Extension. The Commission granted the State three more months to comply with the recommendations. On February 9, 2012, the State presented a report in this regard. f. Submission to the Court. On February 21, 2012, the Commission submitted the case to the Court, “owing to the need to obtain justice for the victims in view of the State’s failure to make progress in complying with the recommendations.” The Commission appointed Commissioner Rodrigo Escobar Gil and the then Executive Secretary Santiago A. Canton as its delegates, and Elizabeth Abi-Mershed, Deputy Executive Secretary, and Silvia Serrano Guzmán, lawyer of the Executive Secretariat, as legal advisers. 3. Requests of the Inter-American Commission. Based on the foregoing, in its brief submitting the case the Commission asked that the Court declare the international responsibility of the State for the violation of the rights to judicial guarantees and to request asylum, and of the guarantee of non-refoulement, recognized in Articles 8, 22(7) and 22(8) of the American Convention, to the detriment of Rumaldo Juan Pacheco Osco and Fredesvinda Tineo Godos and of Frida Edith, Juana Guadalupe and Juan Ricardo Pacheco Tineo; of the rights to judicial protection, and to mental and moral integrity, recognized in Articles 25 and 5(1) of the Convention, to their detriment, and for the violation of the obligation to provide special protection to children, recognized in Article 19 of the Convention, to the detriment of their daughters and son, all in relation to Article 1(1) of the Convention. In addition, the Commission asked the Court to order the State to take the specific measures of reparation described in its report. II. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT 5