Immigration Service and did not return. Mrs. Tineo [was] detained by the National Inspectorate and was referred to the Police to be deported from the country the following day.”72 78. At 4.30 p.m. or 7.59 p.m. the same day, the Consulate General of Chile in La Paz sent “confidential official message” No. 112 to the Chilean Consular Directorate General (“DIGECONSU”) advising that Juan Carlos Molina, Adviser to the Director of Immigration, had called the Consulate to advise that Rumaldo Juan Pacheco Osco and Fredesvinda Tineo Godos had been arrested based on their illegal entry into Bolivia. In this message, the Consulate referred to: “Romualdo [sic] Juan Pacheco Osco, RUN Residence in Chile 14,490,765-2, Residence permit expired on January 6, 2001, and his wife, Fredesvinda Tineo Godoy [sic], RUN 14691291-5 Residence in Chile expired on January 8, 2001.” In the message, he advised that both individuals “had been in Bolivia as refugees and that, on March 23, 1998, they had gone to live in Chile where they obtained residence” and that “according to the Bolivian immigration authorities they had been granted refugee status owing to accusations of terrorism against them in Peru.” He also indicated: “Peruvian citizens entered Peru illegally from Chile on February 3, 2001; then entered Bolivia illegally via Copacabana on the Lake Titicaca border; they have told the Bolivian immigration authorities that, if they are deported, they wish to be deported to Chile. Consequently, the [Bolivian] Immigration Service has asked the [Consulate’s] opinion and whether it agrees to their deportation to Chile.”73 79. In these circumstances, the passports of the Pacheco Tineo family were retained in the SENAMIG office. The presumed victims also stated that, on this occasion, they presented all the documents they were carrying,74 even the one proving their refugee status in Chile,75 which was denied by witness Molina during the hearing.76 In this regard, even though, in its answering brief, the State affirmed that “there is no valid proof that the Pacheco Tineo family was stripped of their documentation and other property,” the retention of the passports was confirmed by the State itself during the processing of the case before the Commission.77 Also, according to the report of the former Chief Adviser on Migratory Affairs, “the passports were in the hands of the Immigration Inspectorate and Residence Permit Directorate, because these documents were not in order,”78 and the Directorate “refused to return them.”79 However, a few days later, the Chilean Consulate itself requested the return of the passports, but did not refer to other 72 Cf. Report of March 23, 2004, addressed by Juan Carlos Molina, Chief Adviser of SENAMIG to Rodolfo Téllez Flores, Director of Legal Affairs of SENAMIG (evidence file, folios 34, 40 and ff.). Report of the Chief Adviser of SENAMIG to the Director of SENAMIG dated February 22, 2001 (evidence file, folio 61), and Report of the Ministry of the Interior of April 9, 2001 (evidence file, folio 85). Also, during the hearing, witness Molina stated: “they never showed, or presented a document, any indication that they had refugee status in Chile. The Chilean Consulate was asked whether these people were refugees in Chile, and the Consulate never sent a letter, a message, anything that could reveal that they were refugees. The UNHCR executing agency in Bolivia was asked whether it had any information that they were refugees in Chile and they never certified this.” Statement made by Juan Carlos Molina before the Inter-American Court on March 20, 2013. 73 1511). Cf. Communication No. 112 of CONGECHILE La Paz to DIGECONSU dated February 20, 2001 (evidence file, folio 74 The presumed victims stated that they were carrying the following documents: passports, Peruvian identity documents and also Chilean identity document (of the child Juan Ricardo), UNHCR certification, SENAME identity card (Rumaldo), birth certificates, professional diplomas, and documents demonstrating their residence in Chile. 75 2013. 76 2013. Statement made by Fredesvinda Tineo during the public hearing before the Inter-American Court on March 20, Statement made by Juan Carlos Molina during the public hearing before the Inter-American Court on March 20, 77 “It should also be mentioned that the petitioners misused the refugee mechanism because they used it as a defense action because their passports had been retained ….” 2008 Report of the State of Bolivia to the IACHR, undated, page 6 of the document (evidence file, no folio number). 78 Cf. Report of March 23, 2004, addressed by Juan Carlos Molina, Chief Adviser of SENAMIG, to Rodolfo Téllez Flores, Director of Legal Affairs of SENAMIG (evidence file, folio 36). 79 Cf. Report of the Chief Adviser of SENAMIG to the Director of SENAMIG dated February 22, 2001 (evidence file, folio 32). 26