212. In addition, they argued that, even in the hypothesis that the expulsion was in order, the Peruvian State was not the most favorable option for the children’s interests, because the Bolivian State was also fully aware that the Pacheco Tineo family had refugee status in Chile and that the youngest child was a Chilean national, so that Chile should have been the country to which they were returned. The fact that the expulsion directly affected the parents does not exempt the State from its unavoidable obligation to respect and ensure the autonomous rights of the children. When the State decided to expel both parents, knowing that they would be deprived of their liberty in the country to which they were returned, it was clearly foreseeable that the consequence would be the forced and involuntary separation of the parents and their children and the consequent lack of family protection of the latter. Thus, by opting directly to expel them to their country of origin, the State violated the right to the protection of the family, recognized in Article 17 of the Convention.247 213. Meanwhile, the State argued, with regard to Article 17, that it had been established that the family separation took place on Peruvian territory as a result of a judicial decision in Peru, in the context of charges of terrorism against the Pacheco Tineo couple and that, therefore, this supposed violation should have been alleged against the State where these violations had taken place. It therefore asked the Court to reject this alleged violation. 214. In relation to Article 19, the State argued that: (a) initially, when the Pacheco Tineo couple came to the offices of the Immigration Service, the children did not observe the supposed violations, because they had been left at a friends’ house; (b) during the expulsion, no kind of physical or psychological violence was used; the Pacheco Tineo couple were not handcuffed, and the police participated simply to support the immigration inspectors; (c) while they were being transported, at the request of Juan Carlos Molina, the immigration inspectors bought nappies and also food for the children and the other members of the Pacheco Tineo family; (d) there is no evidence that the inspectors responsible for the expulsion of the Pacheco Tineo family separated the children from their parents during the drive between La Paz and Desaguadero; (e) there is no evidence that the children were expelled or that their passports were stamps with the word “expelled,” and (f) the Pacheco Tineo couple, legal representatives of the children, Frida Edith, Juana Guadalupe and Juan Ricardo, never requested asylum on behalf of their children. Lastly, the State added that “the Pacheco Tineo couple, irresponsibly violated the right to protection and care of their children, because it is not reasonable that a family that is said to be sought for acts of terrorism, whose life and liberty are in danger, that entered Bolivia illegally, cause their loved ones to run these unrealistic risks, ignoring the care and protection that they owed to their children.” 215. In its final arguments, the State indicated that, although asylum is a very personal benefit, the Pacheco Tineo couple never requested asylum on behalf of their children, even if it was not possible to extend the benefits of the mechanism of asylum, of restrictive application, to individuals who, at that time, were not the object of measures by the Peruvian State that would allow affirming the existence of a slight well-founded fear or minimal persecution against them. Thus, the children did not have to be an active or passive participant in the immigration procedure or the one to define refugee status. The State argued that, based on the principle of unequivocally implied the detention of their parents and, consequently, the lack of protection and the abandonment of the children, as in fact occurred. 247 In addition, they argued that the measures of protection that should have been adopted included an assisted return of the children, accompanied by specialists in the matter and based on the best interests of the child; establishing the manner and terms of the transfer with the intervention of the consular or immigration officials of the recipient country, and prior communication with the relatives of the parents so that children could be handed over in a way that ensured family unification. Thus, they stated that the children were left abandoned with the detention of their parents as soon as they entered Peruvian territory, so that the State of Bolivia violated the right to physical, mental and moral integrity of the children and, at the same time, the right to protection of the family owing to arbitrary interference in family life. 67