a situation of complete uncertainty with regard to the result of their second request for recognition of refugee status and with regard to the possibility of filing an appeal, so that it is reasonable to infer that they suffered “anxiety and fear” concerning the deprivation of liberty that would await them in their country of origin and the consequent separation from their children. Similarly, given the same circumstances and the very young age of their children, the latter suffered “fear and lack of protection” during the transfer and the expulsion. It considered that the State was responsible for the violation of Article 5(1) of the Convention. 201. The representatives considered that the members of the Pacheco Tineo family had been victims of mental, moral and physical abuse in violation of Article 5(1) and 5(2) of the Convention. According to the representatives, these violations occurred on two occasions: on February 20, 2001, in the offices of the Immigration Service in La Paz when Juan Carlos Molina, then Chief Adviser on Migratory Affairs, verbally insulted Romualdo Juan Pacheco Osco and Fredesvinda Tineo Godos, took all the family’s documents, ordered the doors to his office to be closed, and ordered the detention of Fredesvinda Tineo Godos. The second occasion was on February 24, 2001, at 6.30 a.m., when the Pacheco family was intercepted and detained by a group of six individuals in civilian clothing, two armed police agents, and Mr. Molina, who was inebriated. Following the family’s detention, according to the representatives, Romualdo Juan Pacheco Osco and Fredesvinda Tineo Godos had “guns pointed at them, and were insulted, humiliated, handcuffed behind their back, and had their heads covered with their coats,” in front of their minor children, from whom they were separated, and all of them were forced to get into two vehicles. During the transfer, the State agents answered the constant requests for an explanation by the presumed victims with “insults, slaps, and death threats, pointing their guns at them”; the presumed victims were in the vehicle for more than two hours without knowing in which direction they were being taken, without being able to raise their head, and handcuffed with their arms twisted, which caused pain and bruising. Moreover, they alleged that, when they reached their destination, they were shut up in a room, their belongings were removed, and then they were taken to the border with only a few cases out of all the luggage they originally had,243 and handed over to the Peruvian authorities. Lastly, the representatives argued that the State did not comply with its obligations under Article 5 because it failed to investigate the alleged cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment to which the members of the Pacheco Tineo family were subjected, after this treatment had been denounced before the Commission. 202. For its part, the State argued that the Commission had established explicitly that no specific evidence had been provided for the supposed events of February 20 and February 24. It also argued that the representatives had provided no evidence to prove that the presumed victims were abused between February 20 and 24, 2001, and that their belongings were removed by State officials. Regarding the incidents that presumably occurred on February 20, the State affirmed that the Pacheco family could have filed a complaint before the Bolivian agents of justice, and regarding the incidents that occurred on February 24, the Pacheco Tineo family could have complained to the Peruvian authorities. Consequently, they cannot request the Court to convict the State of these incidents, without any supporting evidence. In addition, the State indicated, based on the principle of subsidiarity, that it is the presumed victims of human rights violations who must exhaust the domestic remedies, and cannot complain that the State did not open an investigation ex officio. B. Considerations of the Court 203. The Court notes that, at all times, the National Immigration Service considered the presumed victims to be illegal immigrants who were in a “completely irregular” situation, and that they were not refugees, even though the said authorities had several ways and 243 The representatives indicated that “on both occasions, the documents of the Pacheco Tineo family were taken; these included their thesis files, references and back-up copies, certificates and original diplomas […], together with the refugee certification provided by UNHCR, apart from electronic equipment and their personal objects, even money. 64