35 159. Finally, the Commission would like to address the argument of the state regarding the permissibility of summary determinations on manifestly unfounded applications, as well as the state’s observations to the effect that the Pacheco Tineo family abused the institution of asylum. 160. Regarding the first point, the Commission finds that, under the American Convention, any proceeding for the determination of rights must include the guarantees of due process. Although states have the authority to order different proceedings to evaluate applications that are “manifestly unfounded,” that authority cannot render void the minimum guarantees of due process. In the instant case, the Commission considers that this argument is not admissible since, to begin with, it is a defense advanced to the IACHR and not a determination that the CONARE actually made in making its decision. The CONARE did not provide grounds to the effect that application was "manifestly unfounded" or state the reasons for reaching such a conclusion. In second place, the summary manner in which the CONARE acted by adopting a decision in an unreasonably short time and without offering the possibility of submitting any arguments, evidence, or defense, renders the most basic due process guarantees void. In third place, as the Commission has already mentioned, a voluntary repatriation in the past cannot constitute an impediment to exercise the right enshrined in article 22(7) of the American Convention. Finally, although the recognition of protection in a third country could justify the denial of an asylum claim, petitioners in this case did not have an opportunity to explain their situation in Chile. The situation was not considered either by the CONARE in its summary determination. 161. Consequently, by summarily rejecting this application, without affording any due process guarantee in the terms described above, the state, through the CONARE, not only acted in violation of the guarantees of due process and the right to seek and be granted asylum, it also infringed the procedural obligations imposed by the principle of non-return by denying protection—resulting in the expulsion— without making a serious and adequate determination of the potential risk faced by the family in their country of origin. 162. Based on the foregoing, the Commission concludes that the state violated the rights to a fair trial, to seek and be granted asylum, the principle of non-return and the right to judicial protection recognized in articles 8(1), 8(2), 22(7), 22(8), and 25 of the American Convention, taken in conjunction with article 1(1) of that instrument, to the detriment of Rumaldo Juan Pacheco Osco; Fredesvinda Tineo Godos; and Frida Edith, Juana Guadalupe, and Juan Ricardo Pacheco Tineo. 1. The right to humane treatment of the Pacheco Tineo family (article 5 of the American Convention) 163. Where it pertains to the instant case, Article 5 of the American Convention provides: 1. Every person has the right to have his physical, mental, and moral integrity respected. 164. Since the initial petition was lodged, the petitioners have claimed a series of violations to their personal integrity, including acts of verbal violence by a SENAMIG official as well as physical and verbal abuse during the journey from La Paz to the border zone of El Desaguadero on February 24, 2001. These facts were refuted by the state, which said that the Pacheco Tineo family were humanely treated by its authorities. 165. As mentioned in the Established Facts section, the Commission has no official information that would allow it to make factual determinations regarding the circumstances as to the time, manner, and location of the transfer of the Pacheco Tineo family with a view to their expulsion. There is no official document whatever that records the details of how the family’s transfer and expulsion proceeded. For their part, the petitioners provided no additional information to support the allegations of mistreatment, such as, for instance, the filing of a complaint. 166. In these circumstances, the Commission considers that it does not have sufficient information to conclude that the state violated the right to humane treatment of the members of the