8(2), 22(7), 22(8) and 25 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, to the detriment of the members of the Pacheco Tineo family. A.2 Arguments of the representatives 119. The representatives added that the background information reveals that no explicit administrative decision existed that terminated the refugee status, as required by article 49 of Supreme Decree 24423 of 1996. This necessarily supposed the processing of the petition by the corresponding administrative mechanisms and with the due judicial guarantees. 139 They argued that one of the members of CONARE who participated in the negative decision, was the Immigration Service lawyer who had dealt with the Pacheco Tineo family in SENAMIG and who had mistreated them, taken their personal documents, ordered the illegal detention of Mrs. Tineo, and initiated the procedures for the family’s deportation. In other words, this person could not, without infringing the guarantee of impartiality, proceed to take part in, and decide on, a new request for refugee status, because he was manifestly prejudiced against the family. They also indicated that there is no record that important members of CONARE (representatives of UNHCR, the Church, the universities, the Permanent Human Rights Assembly) had been convened, in order to balance the right of the parties involved. In addition, they argued that the State did not take into account that the “voluntary” repatriation that originated the subsequent return of the Pacheco Tineo family to Peru from Bolivian territory was related to the reason why the family abandoned Bolivia in the first place: the violation of their economic, social and cultural rights.140 In other words, the application on February 21, 2001, was assessed based on a 1998 decision, three years previously, without considering the change in circumstances of the Pacheco Tineo family, whose voluntary repatriation did not prevent them requesting refugee status for a second time. 120. They indicated that, in this case, CONARE eschewed is primary obligation to examine whether or not, with regard to the Pacheco Tineo family, the main requirements for refugee status were met, which, above all and unavoidably, requires hearing the statements of the applicants, and this “gave rise to a manifestly illegal and arbitrary decision in evident violation by the State of Bolivia of Article 22(7) of the American Convention.” The State should also have annulled any possible execution of a deportation order that was based on their illegal entry into Bolivian territory. They argued that the deportation to the applicants’ country of origin was not admissible also, because the liberty and integrity of the presumed victims was at grave risk. Lastly, if an applicant claims to have been granted refugee status, he has the right to be returned to the State where this refugee status was granted, if its laws allow this, but should never be returned to his country of origin or to any other State where his liberty and integrity would be in danger, as in this case. However, the Pacheco Tineo family was deported immediately, the day after the decision ordering this was issued, in violation of Article 22(7) and 22(8) of the American Convention. 121. They indicated that the domestic laws that were applied recognized the right to file an administrative appeal, but the deportation of the family was carried out less than 48 hours after 139 They argued that, in the migratory proceeding that culminated with the deportation, the following rights had been violated: (I) the right to a hearing; (II) to be tried by an ordinary, competent, independent and impartial judge or court (which they emphasized, owing to the participation of the Immigration Service lawyer as a member of CONARE); (III) the right to obtain a reasoned decision; (IV) the prior communication, in detail, of the charges against them; (V) adequate time and means for the preparation of their defense; (VI) the right to defend themselves personally or to be assisted by legal counsel of their own choosing and, in this case, to communicate freely and privately with him; (VII) the right to offer evidence for the defense; (VIII) the right to appeal the judgment to a higher court, and (IX) the inalienable right to be assisted by counsel provide by the State. 140 The representatives indicated, without providing any grounds, the following: “the lack of access to employment, housing, food, education and health was due to the fact that the Bolivian State did not provide them with the necessary documentation to reside in that country with all the rights granted them in the 1951 Convention (Arts. 17 to 23), the American Convention (Arts. 4 and 26), the Protocol of San Salvador (Arts. 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, 10, 12, 13) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (Arts. 2, 6, 11, 12, 13).” 39