due process to handle the request for refugee status submitted by members of the Pacheco Tineo family in February 2001. 178. The Court also considers that the State’s affirmation that “the administrative decision of CONARE was supported by a ruling of the Constitutional Court, in effect complying with a judicial review” has not been proved. First, the object of the ruling of the Constitutional Court of March 23, 2001, was the review of the decision of a court of February 22, that year, declaring admissible the application for habeas corpus filed in favor of Mrs. Tineo Godos. Hence, by partially confirming the admissibility of this remedy, what that Court was deciding was whether the immigration authority had competence to detain people and, consequently, it was not making an assessment of the CONARE decision. Thus, the only reason that the Constitutional Court cited to affirm that the appellant had “systematically violated the immigration norms of Bolivia, without respecting the laws of three countries and [had] made a mockery of the norms in force for refugees,” was the sworn statement on voluntary repatriation of March 5, 1998. Furthermore, there is no evidence that Mrs. Godos was heard during the review proceeding by the said Court. Consequently, it cannot be considered that the Constitutional Court endorsed, confirmed or “supported” the CONARE decision, or that the judicial review was aimed at reviewing the appropriate nature of those proceedings. 179. Thus, faced with a new request for asylum, the State had a special obligation of caution, diligence and care in processing this; particularly, if it had information that the applicants had already been granted refugee status or residence in a third State, in this case Chile. In other words, Bolivia should have been a safe State for the presumed victims and, as such, should have made an adequate determination of what was required in this case; particularly because contact was made with the consular authorities of this third State and, owing to their status as refugees or residents of that State, the members of the Pacheco Tineo family could have the right not to be returned to their country of origin. In addition, since children were involved, the best interests of the child should have prevailed when taking decisions that could affect them directly or indirectly (infra paras. 220 to 232), especially since one of them was a national of the said third State. However, the applicants were not given the opportunity to explain their situation of protection in Chile to CONARE, which did not assess their situation and decided not to consider the new request in a manner that was both summary and arbitrary in the terms of the minimum guarantees that should have been respected. 180. Consequently, the State violated the guarantees of due process and the right to seek and to receive asylum, in addition to failing to comply with the procedural obligations imposed by the right to non refoulement, by expelling the Pacheco Tineo family from its territory without considering their asylum request in an appropriate manner. B.3.3. Expulsion of the presumed victims from Bolivia 181. The State argued that it had been unable to discover, within a reasonable time, despite the steps it took, either from the Pacheco Tineo couple, or from the UNHCR, or from the Chilean Consulate, or from the Permanent Human Rights Assembly, that the couple had refugee status in Chile, so that it was unable to proceed, in any circumstance, to return them to the State of Chile, but rather to Peru which was their country of origin and from which they had come. 182. In addition, regarding the documentation relating to the internal and external communications of the Chilean Consulate in La Paz, the State argued that the content of these documents reveals “that the real reason why Chile would have accepted the return of the family to Chile was the nationality of the child, Juan Ricardo Pacheco Tineo, and not owing to the alleged and supposed refugee status of the presumed victims”; that none of the documents forwarded by the State of Chile had established or expressly indicated that the Pacheco Tineo couple had refugee status in Chile and, to the contrary, indicated that their residence permits 59