identity card or passport, and therefore feared that they might be arrested. 69 The presumed victims indicated that they entered Bolivia by the road from Puno to La Paz, “taking advantage of the laxness at the border and the good relations between Peru and Bolivia,” because at the border the crossing was “more fluid, for both commerce and tourism,” and “it was much easier to be able to cross over illegally,” so they decided to cross at that point.70  February 20, 2001 C.2 Visit to the office of the National Immigration Service of Bolivia 76. It is an undisputed fact that, on February 20, 2001, at approximately 10 a.m., Rumaldo Pacheco and Fredesvinda Tineo visited the office of the National Immigration Service (SENAMIG) of Bolivia (hereinafter “SENAMIG”) in La Paz. Mr. Pacheco and Mrs. Tineo were attended by Juan Carlos Molina, Head of Immigration and Chief Adviser on Migratory Affairs. 77. The presumed victims indicated that the purpose of this visit was to regularize their documents, to advise that that they intended to cross Bolivian territory to reach Chile, and to ask for support for their journey. Likewise, according to the report of the former Chief Adviser on Migratory Affairs, as well as other documents in the evidence file,71 the presumed victims had entered Bolivia illegally and the purpose of their visit to this office was “to request that they be allowed to cross Bolivian territory to Chile, or that the Bolivian immigration authorities take them to that country.” In his report, the former Chief Adviser also stated the following: “It was evident that the whole family had entered Bolivia illegally; that is, evading or circumventing the obligatory immigration control posts of Peru and Bolivia. At no time did they prove that they were refugees. The immigration authorities had information that they had renounced their refugee status and requested voluntary repatriation in March 1998.” […] A telephone call was made to that country’s Consul. No official response was received regarding whether or not these people could enter Chile. Accordingly, they were treated just like any alien who enters the country illegally. Pacheco left the offices of the 69 2013 Statement made by Rumaldo Pacheco before the Inter-American Court at the public hearing held on March 20, 70 Statement made by Rumaldo Pacheco before the Inter-American Court at the public hearing held on March 20, 2013. According to the statement made by Mr. Pacheco Osco before the Chilean Consul in La Paz on February 21, 2001: “On Sunday, February 18, they flew from Lima to Juliaca (Bolivia) [sic] with a stopover in Arequipa, and in microbus to Puno and Copacabana. According to Mr. Pacheco, on Sundays there is no supervision on the border crossing because it is a day of rest. […] On Monday, at around 3 p.m., they filled in forms for entry into Bolivia at the border crossing, but when they handed over their passports to register their entry into the country, the police realized that they did not have the exit stamps from Peru; they returned to Copacabana and they were allowed to be there; then to the Tiquina Straits, stating that they would regularize their situation in La Paz, they arrived there at night and asked UNHCR for assistance. […] They thought that they would not have difficulties to travel because the social assistance unit of UNHCR Chile […] told him that there would be no problems […] The social assistant, Aline Hoger, asked them for more data and information in order to renew their refugee visa, and they therefore decided to travel to Peru.” Cf. Text “Situation of the Peruvian refugee Romualdo Pacheco Osco and family” issued by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile (evidence file, folio 1528). See also: Communication No. 116 of CONGECHILE La Paz to DIGENCONSU dated February 21, 2001 (evidence file, folio 1527). In this regard, during the hearing, one of the judges asked witness Molina if the entry system into the country had failed and how they were able to enter without anyone noticing it, and the witness answered: “the peoples of Bolivia and Peru are very interconnected […] in culture, in race, in customs, and in the border villages the border may be a street; it is a space. People in the region live on one side and have relatives on the other side and they are part of the same border community; hence, the passage over the bridges, through the immigration mechanisms, are free, the control is not very strict, as it is in the borders with Chile. […] Thus, anyone can enter or exit freely without passing through border controls; however, the law is, and they know it, that if they want to cross the border to travel to other towns, they must pass through the border control system.” Cf. Statement made by Juan Carlos Molina before the Inter-American Court on March 20, 2013. 71 Cf. Record of the public hearing on habeas corpus issued by the Ninth District Criminal Court on February 22, 2001 (evidence file, folio 1009). See also: Judgment of the Constitutional Court No. 233/01 reviewing the decision ruling that the application for habeas corpus filed on February 21, 2001, was partially admissible (evidence file, folios 72 and 73). 25