93. On February 23, 2001, the special prosecutor of the La Paz District Prosecutor’s Office issued an official request to the Director of SENAMIG on the deportation of the Pacheco Tineo family,101 as follows: […] given that they have not been able to prove their legal entry into the country, the persons who respond to the names RUMALDO JUAN PACHECO OSCO, FREDESVINDA TINEO GODOS, FRIDA EDITH PACHECO TINEO, JUANA GUADALUPE PACHECO PINEDO (sic) and JUAN RICARDO PACHECO TINEO, the former Peruvian, and the last one Chilean, all of whom are currently without any type of documentation, and also have lost their refugee status, it is incumbent on your office to order that they be deported from the country pursuant to the country’s migratory laws. 94. On the same date, SENAMIG issued Decision No. 136/2001 of February 23, 2001, in which, “pursuant to the official request of the prosecutor and since they are in a situation of illegality, violating the migratory laws in force,” and in application of Article 48(b), (c), (g) and (k) of Supreme Decree 24423,102 it decided “to deport from national territory” all the members of the Pacheco Tineo family “because they had violated the existing immigration laws and regulations.” The SENAMIG Inspectorate and Residence Permit Directorate was commissioned to execute this decision, which was signed by the National Director of the Inspectorate and Residence Permit Directorate and by the SENAMIG Adviser on Migration.103 There is no record that this decision was notified to the members of the Pacheco Tineo family. 95. The Court notes that the State provided a second version of this decision, with the same number and date, with a similar content and wording, but that only orders the deportation of Mr. Pacheco Osco and Mrs. Tineo Godos, without mentioning the children. This second version is signed by the SENAMIG Adviser on Migration and contains another signature above the title “Desaguadero Immigration”; there is an “EXIT” stamp dated February 24, 2001, with the indication “Desaguadero” and another stamp reading “EXPELLED.”104 This will be analyzed below, but it is sufficient to indicate that the Court finds it proved that, despite what is indicated in this second version of the document, the Pacheco Tineo children were also expelled from Bolivia by the SENAMIG decision. 101 Cf. Official request of the La Paz District Prosecutor’s Office of February 23, 2001 (evidence file, folio 64). 102 Article 48 of this Decree established that: “Aliens included in the following categories shall be deported from the country and may not enter Bolivian territory in the future: (a) Those who bear or present at any time a forged or falsified passport, identity card, or other document; (b) Those who have entered the country illegally, violating provisions established in this Supreme Decree or who make false statements or present falsified documents or contracts to the immigration or employment authorities; (c) Those who are found remaining in the country, without any justification, after the period authorized in their respective visa or residence permit; (d) Those whose residence or stay in the country has been cancelled or annulled; (e) Those who may be conducting illegal business or have committed acts contrary to public morals or to the health of society, or who are involved in vagrancy; (f) Those who intervene directly or indirectly in activities relating to people-trafficking, drug-trafficking, terrorism, arms-trafficking or possession of firearms, currency counterfeiting, or those who aid and abet or protect those dedicated to the foregoing, even if sentences convicting them have not ordered their deportation; (g) Those who may have defrauded in any way the national Treasury or State institutions; (h) Those who have committed offenses that are punished with more than six months’ imprisonment or who have been convicted for fraudulent bankruptcy, even if the respective judgments have not ordered their deportation; (i) Those who intervene in any way in domestic politics or trade union leadership, or incite social, political or labor union unrest by any means; who become members of associations that have direct or indirect political purposes; those who intervene in the organization or leadership of marches, meetings or any type of public demonstrations of a political nature or contrary to the decisions of the Government, or who make statements or publications of this type or that are offensive to national institutions and/or authorities, and those who in any way engage in the incitement of disobedience of the laws of the Republic or of the legally constituted authorities; (j) Those who, in any way, hinder the good international relations of Bolivia, or implement propaganda and agitation activities against the Governments of the countries with which we maintain relations; (k) Those who fail to comply with the residence obligations that may have been imposed on them.” 103 Cf. SENAMIG Decision No.136/2001 of February 23, 2001 (evidence file, folio 66). 104 Copy of SENAMIG Decision No.136/2001 of February 23, 2001, with some differences in the wording and with the stamp of “Deshuesadero” (evidence file, folio 68). See also: Copy of SENAMIG Decision No.136/2001 of February 23, 2001, with some differences in the wording and with the stamp of “Deshuesadero” (evidence file, folio 1503) 32