opportunities of confirming that they had this status in Chile. On this basis, the immigration authorities retained the documents of the Pacheco Tineo family on February 20, 2001, and arrested Mrs. Tineo Godos, who was taken to police cells to be expelled. As a result of this, Mr. Pacheco Osco took steps to obtain his wife’s release and presented a new request for refugee status in Bolivia. Then, on February 24, 2001, they were expelled from Bolivia by the immigration and police authorities. The representatives argue that the two incidents resulted in the violation of the right physical integrity of the presumed victims. The State argued that neither incident fell within the factual framework. 204. Regarding the first incident alleged by the representatives, relating to the “supposed mental, moral and physical violence of which they had been victims” on February 20, 2001, in the office of the then Chief Adviser on Migratory Affairs, the Court notes that this situation was connected, according to the representatives, to the fact that, on that day, the presumed victims had visited the SENAMIG offices, where they were attended by the said official. Notwithstanding whether that fact is in keeping with the purpose of this case, and even if it is, the Court finds that there is insufficient evidence to establish that Mr. Pacheco Osco and Mrs. Tineo Godos really were insulted or treated abusively in any way in the office of Juan Carlos Molina in SENAMIG. 205. Similarly, with regard to the events relating to the way in which the presumed victims were transported to Peru, as regards the supposed “mental, moral and physical violence inflicted by Bolivian State agents of which they had supposedly been victims” on February 24, 2001, the Court notes that, regardless of whether this fact is in keeping with the purpose of this case, or even it is was, and whether the presumed victims declared that they had suffered these actions inflicted by State agents, the Court does not have sufficient evidence to differ from the Commission’s conclusion in its Merits Report.244 206. In the instant case, it has not been proved that members of the Pacheco Tineo family were subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or acts on February 20, 2001, or when they were detained and transported to the border between Bolivia and Peru on February 24 that year. However, in the circumstances in which they had not been provided with the support they sought from the Bolivian authorities, it is logical that the retention of their documentation, as well as the illegal and arbitrary detention of Mrs. Tineo Godos, gave rise to feelings of anxiety, frustration and anguish among the members of the family, in particular for Mr. Pacheco Osco, who were in a situation of extreme uncertainty and concern about what might happen to them. In addition, as established in the previous chapter, the presumed victims did not receive any information from the authorities regarding their proceeding, so that they had to suffer all the violations of due process of law in relation to the expulsion proceeding opened against them and the denial of their asylum request. 207. Furthermore, with the full knowledge of the Bolivian immigration authorities, the Chilean Government had authorized the entry of the Pacheco Tineo family into Chile and had provided them with logistic assistance to ensure their transport to that country, which would have taken place on the morning of February 24, 2001. Despite this, as has been established, that same morning an expulsion decision was executed against them, which had been issued the previous day and had not been notified to them, which rendered illusory any possibility of appealing against this decision. The family was detained unexpectedly and taken to Peru, where its members were handed over to that country’s immigration and police authorities. In other words, 244 In the Merits Report, the Commission concluded that “insufficient information has been provided to allow [it] to make factual decisions on the circumstances of how, where and when the transfer of the Pacheco Tineo family was carried out in order to expel them. No official document exists recording the details of the procedure for the transport and expulsion of the family. Furthermore, the petitioners did not provide any complementary documentation to substantiate the alleged ill-treatment, such as the filing of a complaint. In these circumstances, the Commission considers that it does not have sufficient information to conclude that the State violated the right to physical integrity of the members of the Pacheco Tineo family during their transfer from La Paz to the border at El Desaguadero on February 24, 2001.” 65