they were expelled in a situation of complete uncertainty about the result of their new request for asylum, without the possibility of filing any judicial remedy in that regard, and having lost the opportunity to return to Chile. In addition, Mr. Pacheco Osco and Mrs. Tineo Godos were afraid of the potential consequences that their handing over to the Peruvian authorities would have for them and their children who, for their part, have testified on the effects that the events had on them.245 Consequently, the Court considers that the anguish, fear and lack of protection caused by the facts described above constituted a violation of the mental and moral integrity of the members of the Pacheco Tineo family. 208. Based on the above, the Court declares that the State is responsible for the violation of the right to mental and moral integrity recognized in Article 5(1) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, to the detriment of Rumaldo Juan Pacheco Osco, Fredesvinda Tineo Godos, the girls Frida Edith and Juana Guadalupe, and the boy Juan Ricardo, the last three with the surnames Pacheco Tineo. However, the Court considers that the State is not responsible for the alleged violation of Article 5(2) of the Convention. VII-3. THE SPECIAL OBLIGATION OF PROTECTION FOR CHILDREN IN RELATION TO THE RIGHTS TO THE PROTECTION OF THE FAMILY, TO JUDICIAL GUARANTEES, AND TO JUDICIAL PROTECTION A. Arguments of the Commission and of the parties 209. The Commission indicated that the special situation of Frida Edith, Juana Guadalupe and Juan Ricardo Pacheco Tineo, who were young children at the time of the events, was not considered in the context of the decisions in the proceedings on expulsion and the request for refugee status. Thus, the actions of SENAMIG and CONARE constituted non-compliance with the special obligation of protection in favor of the three children under Article 19 of the American Convention. 210. In addition, the Commission considered that, based on the analysis made on the right to mental and moral integrity of the whole family, it was not necessary to rule separately on the possible violation of the right recognized in Article 17 of the American Convention. 211. The representatives argued that the State had violated the rights recognized in Articles 8(1), 8(2), 25, 5(1) and 17(1) of the Convention, in relation to Articles 19, 1(1) and 2 of this instrument, to the detriment of the children, Frida Edith, Juana Guadalupe and Juan Ricardo Pacheco Tineo. They emphasized that the children and their best interests were never taken into consideration in the proceedings held by the Bolivian authorities. Thus, they recalled that, although they were very young, the children were never heard during the proceeding on recognition of refugee status, nor were their parents, who as legal representatives of the children, could have described their situation and needs. Consequently, they considered that the guarantees of due process had been violated, because the children’s requests were not weighed individually, which would have allowed the “best interests of the child” to be taken into account as a basis for the decision.246 245 Frida Edith Pacheco testified that the expulsion had personal, family, social and financial consequences, among which the most important were mental and physical problems, financial hardships, destruction of family ties, and restriction of social ties (evidence file, folios 1215 and 1216). Similarly, Juana Guadalupe Pacheco testified that she had suffered psychological effects and the relationship with her parents was affected following their detention in Peru (evidence file, folio 1227). Lastly, although to a far lesser extent, Juan Ricardo Pacheco testified that he suffered the psychological effects of the facts for years (Evidence file, folio 1250). 246 The representatives also observed that the Bolivian immigration laws that were applied lack a differentiated proceeding for child migrants. They added that if the State had taken this best interests of the child into consideration, it would not have adopted the decision to expel them because the State authorities were aware of an arrest warrant for the children’s parents in Peru; thus the expulsion of their parents and the handing over to the Peruvian authorities, 66