 What would the Peruvian Government say if it found out that we had regularized the situation of individuals who have left their own country without completing the Immigration formalities, avoiding their migratory control posts? Owing to all the above, it has been decided that these persons do not enjoy refugee status and, apart from the habeas corpus that ruled that the detention had been wrongful, the administrative procedure of deportation can be implemented by the Immigration Legal Affairs Directorate and the Public Prosecution Service, in order to proceed in accordance with the law and the Immigration Regime. 99 92. Also, on the same February 22, 2001, the Chilean Consulate General in La Paz advised the Consular General Directorate (in Santiago) of the situation of the Pacheco Tineo family at 5 p.m. that day, as follows: 1. We had arranged with Mr. Pacheco that he would come to the Consulate at 9 a.m. today with any documents he could bring regarding himself and his family. He advised that he was unable to come; and he went to the Bolivian Immigration Service. According to information provided by the Immigration Service, he entered into a lengthy verbal argument claiming the return of the five passports. Immigration refused to return them for two reasons: a) Because their situation in Bolivia was unresolved. b) Because an application for habeas corpus filed by the Permanent Human Rights Assembly in favor of the release of his wife was pending before the judge. 2. The immigration authorities asked us, in view of the court hearing this afternoon, to indicate that a consultation with Chile about the situation of Mr. Pacheco and his family was pending. I informed them that, based on jurisdictional immunity and the confidentiality with which this type of matter is dealt with, we could not commit to do so. 3. I asked Mr. Pacheco to come to the Consulate. He arrived at 1 p.m. accompanied by his family. I told him that the processing of an application for habeas corpus in a public hearing, now that his wife had been released, would attract unnecessary publicity to the processing of his request to reside in Chile and, also, create unnecessary problems for the Bolivian immigration authorities. I told him that I was going to ask for the withdrawal of the complaint against the Bolivian immigration authorities. […] 5. At 5 pm., I received a telephone call from Mr. Molina of the Immigration Service advising that the court hearing had been held and that the complaint had not been withdrawn, and that the judge had fined the Bolivian immigration authorities US$40. He indicated that what had happened was very problematic and difficult to understand, unless it was so seek to manipulate domestic politics in Bolivia or to seek publicity. He indicated that, in the actual circumstances, the Government of Bolivia reserved the right to choose the procedure to follow and that, evidently, what had happened had complicated Mr. Pacheco’s situation. 6. I asked Mr. Molina to avoid drastic measures, because we were awaiting a decision of the Chilean Ministry of the Interior, and that they take into consideration that one of the members of the Peruvian family was a Chilean citizen. 7. Sr. Molina told me that he would wait for our response. 8. Apart from the foregoing, Mr. Pacheco requested tickets for travelling to Santiago by air if he was granted authorization to enter Chile. I told him that the Consulate could only help with land transport to Arica – as in the case of any Chilean citizen. UNHCR uses the same criterion; it could only obtain a 20% reduction in the fares if this is approved by the IOM; a matter requiring a long and complex procedure. […]100 C.4  Deportation of the Pacheco Tineo family from Bolivia to Peru February 23, 2001 99 Cf. Report of Juan Carlos Molina, Chief Adviser of SENAMIG to the Director of SENAMIG dated February 22, 2001 (evidence file, folios 61 and 62). 100 Cf. Communication No. 122 CONGECHILE La Paz to DIGECONSU of February 22, 2001 [evidence file, folios 1524 and 1525). 31