considers that the events of this case occurred in a situation of factual impediment to ensure the presumed victims real access to the right to appeal, in violation of the right to judicial protection, recognized in Article 25 of the Convention, so that it is not pertinent to analyze the scope of the remedies mentioned by the State. B.4. Time-barred allegation of violation of Article 22(9) of the Convention 196. Lastly, on this point it is pertinent to note that, in their final oral and written arguments, the representatives alleged that the State had violated Article 22(9) of the Convention by having expelled the Pacheco Tineo family “en masse.” Since this allegation was not made opportunely – in other words, in their motions and arguments brief – in order to allow the other party and the Court to make an adequate assessment,242 and since there is no supervening fact that supports it, the Court finds it unnecessary to analyze this allegation of the representatives. B.5. Conclusion 197. The Court reiterates that the right to seek and to be granted asylum established in Article 22(7) of the American Convention does not ensure that refugee status must be granted to the applicant, but does mean that his application must be processed with the due guarantees. 198. In this case, in relation to the denial of the asylum request, the State violated the rights to judicial guarantees, to seek and to be granted asylum, the principle of non-refoulement, and the right to judicial protection, recognized in Articles 8, 22(7), 22(8) and 25 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, to the detriment of Rumaldo Juan Pacheco Osco, Fredesvinda Tineo Godos, Frida Edith, Juana Guadalupe and Juan Ricardo, all three with the surnames Pacheco Tineo. 199. In addition, in this case, the deportation of the members of the family to their country of origin in violation of the minimum guarantees of due process, and in the knowledge that they were able to have protection as refugees in a third country, is incompatible with the right to seek and to be granted asylum and with the principle of non-refoulement, recognized in Article 22(7) and 22(8) of the American Convention. Furthermore, the State is responsible for the violation of the right to be heard with due guarantees in an administrative proceeding that culminated with the family’s expulsion, as well as the right to judicial protection, pursuant to Articles 8(1) and 25 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, to the detriment of Rumaldo Juan Pacheco Osco, Fredesvinda Tineo Godos, Frida Edith, Juana Guadalupe and Juan Ricardo, all three with the surnames Pacheco Tineo. VII-2. RIGHT TO PERSONAL INTEGRITY (ARTICLE 5 OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION) A. Arguments of the Commission and of the parties 200. The Commission indicated that it did not have sufficient information to conclude that the State had violated the right to physical integrity of the members of the Pacheco Tineo family during their transfer from La Paz to the border at El Desaguadero on February 24, 2001. Nevertheless, it considered that the members of the Pacheco Tineo family had been expelled in 242 The logical and adequate functioning of the inter-American human rights system means that, as a “system,” the parties must present their positions and information on the facts coherently and in accordance with the principles of good faith and legal certainty, in order to allow the other parties and the inter-American organs to make an adequate analysis of the case. Thus, once a contentious case has been submitted to the Court by the Commission, the legal claims of the parties and their positions with regard to the facts must be provided on the first opportunity they have of exercising their right of defense. Cf., mutatis mutandi, Case of the Santo Domingo Massacre v. Colombia, paras. 144, 146 and 148. 63