had been reached for their transfer to Chile. Indeed, the Chilean Consul advised SENAMIG at around midday on February 23 that the family had been authorized to enter Chile; in other words, the same day on which the injunction was issued and also deportation decision 136/2001. 187. It has been proved that the decision on the admissibility of the expulsion under article 48 of the Immigration Regime was taken in a summary manner, without granting a hearing to the presumed victims, and it was carried out within an unreasonably short period of time. No assessment was made regarding the country to which they should be transferred and the potential danger they might face in their country of origin, Peru, which is more serious, because the Bolivian immigration authorities were aware that the child Juan Ricardo Pacheco Tineo was a Chilean national, and that it had, at least, been indicated that the other members of the Pacheco Tineo family had been granted refugee status by Chile or were residents of that country. Following the issue of Decision 136/2001, this was notified to the presumed victims, so that they would be informed of the grounds for their expulsion and, if appropriate, could file the applicable administrative and/or judicial remedies. Although this decision was subsequent to the decision by CONARE, it was issued, as was the injunction, only two days after that decision and merely reproduced the same reasons: that the members of the Pacheco family had entered the country illegally; that they had lost their refugee status, and that they had violated the existing immigration provisions contained in article 48 of Supreme Decree 24423. 188. Furthermore, although it may be true that an arrest warrant is not, per se, a reason to grant refugee status, the Court notes that the existence of an arrest warrant is a reason, in case of taking action, to respect the official deportation or extradition procedures established in domestic law and the relevant international treaties. In this case, the Pacheco Tineo family was handed over to Peruvian immigration and police authorities, as recorded in a report of the Director General of INTERPOL of Bolivia provided by the State with its answering brief, and as indicated by the Chief Adviser on Migratory Affairs to the Chilean Consul on the day following the expulsion (supra para. 105). In other words, the State of Bolivia did not only expel them owing to their irregular migratory situation, but also due to the existence of an international arrest warrant, without this reason being noted as grounds for the expulsion decision of the prosecutor or of SENAMIG. 189. Consequently, in the terms in which it was decided and carried out, the deportation to the country of origin of the members of the Pacheco Tineo family was incompatible with the right to seek and to receive asylum, and with the principle of non-refoulement, recognized in Article 22(7) and 22(8) of the American Convention, as well as with the right to be heard with due guarantees in an administrative proceeding that could culminate in their expulsion, in the terms of Article 8 of the American Convention. B.3.4. Alleged effectiveness of other judicial remedies 190. In its final arguments, the State indicated that two available, adequate and effective remedies existed that the presumed victims could have used to overcome any eventual violation of due process according to the Convention. First, the remedy of amparo that, according to the case law of the Constitutional Court could have served to protect, promptly and within a reasonable time, acts such as the absence of a remedy of appeal or, in general, the acts by the public administration, failure to notify, right of defense and due process of law. 239 Second, the remedy of habeas corpus which, in Bolivia, protects not only the freedom of the individual, but also due process, even in the event of presumed illegal proceedings and persecution. The State referred to judgments handed down by the Constitutional Court in other cases and on dates 239 It also argued that, at the time of the facts, Bolivian law established the possibility of filing a preventive measure to suspend any act of the Administration that could violate rights, which could have been used to suspend any decision on a supposed request for asylum or the expulsion procedure. 61