Assembly.131 On the same date, the Head of the Human Rights Unit sent a report to the Vice Minister of Human Rights in which he summarized the facts and indicated: “When the Pacheco Tineo family left Bolivian territory [in 1998], they went to the Republic of Chile where they achieved refugee status, under the conditions of the State granting this. […] All this information has been reported to you so that, in the case of the refoulement of the Pacheco Tineo family, you would recommend that this should be to the Republic of Chile, a concern that the National Refugee Commission (CONARE) was informed of at its last meeting.”132 111. On April 9, 2001, the Director of SENAMIG sent a report to the Ministry of the Interior of Bolivia, recapitulating the facts from the time of the Pacheco Tineo family’s visit to the immigration office up until their deportation.133 112. The same day, April 9, 2001, the Prosecutor General’s Office requested the Director of SENAMIG to provide a report. The request indicated that the Special Operations Division of the Departmental Directorate of the Judicial Technical Police “has been conducting an investigation ex officio and at the request of the Human Rights Committee of the Chamber of Representatives with regard to the arbitrary and undue detention of the Pacheco Tineo family, and the fact that they were sent detained to the Peruvian police […].” 134 This request was received by SENAMIG on April 10,135 and answered by a report the following day.136 No other results of this investigation were provided. 113. On August 1 and 7, 2001, respectively, Rumaldo Juan Pacheco Osco and Fredesvinda Tineo Godos entered the Republic of Chile by the immigration control post of the Arturo Merino Benítez airport.137 Currently, the Pacheco Tineo family live in Chile, with “permanent residence” in this country since May 13, 2002. Rumaldo Pacheco indicated that they have returned to Peru at least once a year and, since then, have not had problems in that country. 138 VII. MERITS 114. Based on the alleged violations of the Convention, the Court will now analyze the merits of this case as follows: (1) the rights to judicial guarantees and judicial protection in relation to the right to freedom of movement and residence (right to seek and to be granted asylum and principle of non-refoulement) in cases of deportation of migrants and of applicants for refugee status; (2) the right to personal integrity; (3) the right to special protection of children in relation to the rights to protection of the family, to judicial guarantees and to judicial protection, and (4) the obligation to adopt provisions of domestic law and the principle of legality. 131 Cf. Communication of the Human Rights Committee of the Chamber of Representatives of Bolivia to the Vice Minister of the Interior Regime and Police of Bolivia, of March 30, 2001 (evidence file, folio 75). 132 Cf. Report to the Vice Minister of Human Rights of March 30, 2001 (evidence file, folios 78 and 79). 133 Cf. Report of the Director of SENAMIG to the Minister of the Interior of April 9, 2001 (evidence file, folios 85 to 87). 134 Cf. Request for a report by the Prosecutor General’s Office (Office of the Criminal Prosecutor of La Paz) of April 9, 2001 (evidence file, folio 81). 135 Cf. Request for a report by the Prosecutor General’s Office (Office of the Criminal Prosecutor of La Paz) of April 9, 2001 (evidence file, folio 81). 136 83). Report of the Director of SENAMIG to the Office of the Criminal Prosecutor of April 11, 2011 (evidence file, folio 137 Cf. Copy of passports of Rumaldo Pacheco and Fredesvinda Tineo (evidence file, folios 13 and 30). 138 Statement made by Rumaldo Pacheco before the Inter-American Court at the public hearing held on March 20, 2013. 37