16 79. In spite of the fact that Mrs. Tineo Godos was at liberty, the petition against the Director of the Department of Inspections and Immigration Bonds and the Director of the Judicial Investigation 54 Police was admitted in the hearing. On February 22, 2001, the Ninth Criminal Court issued the ruling in question, admitting the petition under article 10 of the Constitution, inasmuch as neither the legal nor the constitutional conditions for detention had been met. Specifically, the ruling found that articles 9 and 11 of 55 the Constitution and articles 225 to 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had been violated. Furthermore, the decision ordered the officials against whom the petition was brought to pay a fine of 200 56 bolivianos each. The Commission has no information as to whether or not this part of the ruling was carried out. 80. On March 23, 2001, by which time the Pacheco Tineo family had been expelled to Peru See below pars. 88 – 93, the Constitutional Court issued its judgment reviewing the habeas corpus 57 petition. The legal grounds put forward for this decision include the following: That the petitioner has systematically violated the immigration standards in Bolivia and failed to abide by the system of laws of three countries, in addition to making a complete mockery of the standards in force for refugees by repeatedly covertly coming and going between Bolivia, Peru, and Chile, which is inadmissible for persons who claim to be persecuted on political grounds, particularly when, based on the Sworn Statement of Voluntary Repatriation of March 5, 1998 (…) the petitioner lost her refugee status in Bolivia from that date forward. That the immigration authorities have the power, inter alia, to keep track of foreigners who are in transit in Bolivia and those who are in the country under a temporary stay or domicile, and they are expressly recognized the authority to expel them when the conditions set out in article 48 of Executive Decree No. 24423 are met (…) however, they do not have the authority to order the arrest of anyone. (…) That in instant case, in ordering that the petitioner be detained and placed in “custody” in the police cells at 5:00 p.m. on February 21 of this year, without authority to do so, the respondent Director of the Department of Inspections and Immigration did violate the provisions of article 9-l of the Constitution, without his having ordered the release of the petitioner the day after learning that she and her family had again applied for refuge lessening the illegality with which the respondent 58 acted. 81. Based on the foregoing, the Constitutional Court approved the habeas corpus decision of February 22, 2001, except with respect to the claim against the Judicial Investigation Police, given that Mrs. Tineo Godos was detained in the cells of the Police Command and not those of the Judicial 59 Investigation Police. 3. The new application for recognition of refugee status on February 21, 2001 54 Appendix 5. Report of the former General Advisor on Immigration to the Legal Director of the National Immigration Service (appended to the state’s brief received on December 23, 2004). 55 Appendix 18. Judgment of the Constitutional Court on the habeas corpus petition of March 23, 2001 (appended to the state’s brief received on December 23, 2004). 56 Appendix 12. Decision of the Ninth Criminal Court in and for La Paz of February 22, 2001 (appended to the state’s brief received on December 23, 2004). 57 Appendix 18. Judgment of the Constitutional Court reviewing the habeas corpus petition, March 23, 2001 (appended to the state’s brief received on December 23, 2004); and Appendix 5. Report of the former General Advisor on Immigration to the Legal Director of the National Immigration Service (appended to the state’s brief received on December 23, 2004). 58 Appendix 18. Judgment of the Constitutional Court on the habeas corpus petition of March 23, 2001 (appended to the state’s brief received on December 23, 2004). 59 Appendix 18. Judgment of the Constitutional Court on the habeas corpus petition of March 23, 2001 (appended to the state’s brief received on December 23, 2004).