166. The Court finds that, in addition to being time-barred and contrary to the principle of estoppel, the State’s argument is inconsistent with what it affirmed during the processing of the case before the Commission and in its answering brief before the Court: that CONARE received, processed and decided the “asylum request” presented by Mr. Pacheco Osco through CEBUNHCR. The State itself provided the said “minutes of the meeting” of CONARE as evidence of this,231 which show that the State had acknowledged that it had received and processed this request in which, incidentally, CEB-UNHCR had noted that they already had refugee status in Chile. In other words, even if it was possible “to infer reasonably” the State’s hypothesis that this communication “was a request for asylum before the UNHCR and not really before Bolivia” and that “the State had merely been informed,” the fact that is recorded in the minutes is that, “the meeting having been called to order,” CONARE “then made an analysis of the cases of applicants for asylum as well as of other issues” and indicated that, “by fax, the CEB-UNHCR project [had] sent the request for asylum of the Peruvian citizens Rumualdo Juan Pacheco Osco and his wife Fredesvinda Tineo Godos.” When sending a “certified copy” of the minutes as an annex to its answering brief, the State indicated that this “establishes that CONARE discussed other cases and other issues, in addition to the request for asylum of Rumaldo Juan Pacheco Osco; in other words, this meeting already had an agenda before the request for asylum filed by this family. That is to say, the evidence is clear as regards the fact that CONARE took note of and processed, in a meeting, the communication of CEB-UNHCR as a “request for asylum” without granting a hearing to the members of the Pacheco Tineo family. Furthermore, there is no record that they received due notification of this decision. 167. In addition, contrary to the State’s arguments, the said request was not rejected because it failed to comply with certain formal requirements indicated in the UNHCR manual, but because CONARE affirmed that “the circumstances that justified their asylum in Bolivia had ceased,” because they had made a statement on voluntary repatriation in March 1998. In the opinion of this organ, this constituted “a tacit renunciation of their refugee status” in Bolivia, and it considered that, “since the applicants had returned to Peru, evidently the circumstances that justified their asylum in Bolivia had ceased.” In other words, CONARE was aware of the request, and decided that it would not be “considered.” 168. In any case, it is not incumbent on the Court to evaluate whether or not the request for refugee status complied with certain formal requirements, in accordance with national or international normative or procedural standards, because it was the responsibility of the domestic authorities, in this case CONARE, to have made this evaluation at the appropriate time. In addition, even in that hypothesis, when presented with a request for asylum, the authorities had the obligation to provide guidance, and should have indicated the procedure to be followed, based on the specific difficulties or needs of the applicant (supra para. 159). 169. The State argued that the presumed victims failed to prove that their life or personal liberty was in danger of being violated, because that same year, 2001, they had returned to Peru of their own free will before entering Bolivia, which revealed their intention of availing themselves of the protection of their country of origin and that this danger did not exist, so that it was not in order to grant them refugee status. The State also argued that there were sufficient reasons to apply exclusion clause “1.F.b)” of the 1951 Convention against Mr. Pacheco and Mrs. Tineo because “they were being prosecuted for terrorism and sought by Interpol.”232 were well aware of the national and international norms on the rights and obligations of refugees, so that, if they had wanted to make a formal request for asylum to CONARE, it can be inferred that they would have been capable of doing so adequately and appropriately,” especially if they were assisted by UNHCR. 231 Moreover, with its answering brief, the State sent a “certified copy” of the minutes of the CONARE meeting, with a “true copy of the original filed in the Secretariat’s archives,” which is more extensive, but identical in content to the document that was provided by the Commission and admitted by this Court (evidence file, folio 1001 and 1002). 232 The State argued that the Court “should analyze specifically, and give emphasis to the fact that, during the period when these events occurred, acts of terrorism were being carried out in Peru, and it is normal under these 56