32 threshold of screening out claims which are ‘manifestly unfounded’ – i.e. clearly fraudulent or not related to the criteria of the 1951 Convention,” and recalled that the UNHCR has indicated that “in all cases, a potential applicant should: be given a complete interview, preferably by an official of the authority competent to determine refugee status; the manifestly unfounded or abusive character of an application should be established by the authority normally competent to determine refugee status; an unsuccessful 136 applicant should be entitled to some form of review before rejection at the frontier or removal.” This point is especially relevant as the inadequate application of exclusion clauses or the concept of "manifestly unfounded" applications can lead to grave situations as a result of a lack of protection. 144. Having said that, on a separate point and with a different scope as regards the possibility of review (which has more to do with article 8(2)(h) of the Convention), concerning the right to judicial protection enshrined in article 25 of the American Convention, the Commission recalls that the purpose of that right is to ensure the existence and effectiveness of remedies by which to question before judicial authorities possible violations of rights recognized in that instrument, the Constitution, and the law of each state. Consequently, the protection envisaged in article 25 of the American Convention also 137 encompasses the rights recognized in articles 22(7) and 22(8) of that instrument. The effect of this right is to require that a domestic remedy be afforded that allows the relevant judicial authority to weigh the substance of the claim and remedy the situation through appropriate reparation. Although applicants do not necessarily have an unlimited right of access to judicial remedies, the limitations on the exercise of this right cannot be unreasonable or of such a nature as to render the right void. 145. In sum, under the American Convention, those persons who are under the jurisdiction of a state and find themselves in the framework of a proceeding for determination of refugee status should be afforded some level of judicial protection against possible violations of the right to seek and be granted asylum, as well as of the principle of non-return, both of which are protected by the Convention. 4. Analysis of the events that occurred between February 20 and 24, 2001 146. It has been established in the instant case that Rumaldo Juan Pacheco Osco, Fredesvinda Tineo Godos, and their three children entered Bolivia on February 19, 2001, without passing through that country's immigration controls. The following day, Mr. Pacheco Osco and Mrs. Tineo Godos visited the offices of the National Immigration Service, where they advised officials of their intention and request for assistance to travel to the State of Chile. It was at that point that the Bolivian immigration authorities became aware of their irregular entry to Bolivia and initiated steps to deport the Pacheco Tineo family to Peru. On February 21, 2001, Mr. Pacheco Osco applied for recognition of refugee status in Bolivia for himself and his family, according to him, as a defense mechanism against the response of the immigration authorities, which was to arbitrarily arrest his wife and initiate procedures for their expulsion to Peru as a result of their irregular entry. That same day, the CONARE convened and summarily determined that the new claim for asylum was inadmissible on the basis that three years earlier the family had requested voluntary repatriation to Peru. Two days later, on February 23, 2001, the SENAMIG issued resolution No. 136/2001, by which it decided to expel the family from Bolivian territory. On February 24, 136 IACHR, Report on the Situation of Human Rights of Asylum Seekers within the Canadian Refugee Determination System. OEA/Ser.L/V/II.106. Doc. 40. Rev. 1. February 28, 2000. par. 69. Cf. UNHCR Executive Committee, Conclusion Nº 30 (XXXIV) – 1983, "The Problem of Manifestly Unfounded or Abusive Applications for Refugee Status or Asylum," Report of the 34th Session, UN Doc. A/AC.96/631, at para. 97(2)(e). 137 See generally, IACHR, Resolutions Nº 3/84, 4/84 and 5/85, Cases Nº 4563, 7848 and 8027, Paraguay, published in Annual Report of the IACHR 1983-84, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.63, doc. 10, 24 Sept. 1984, at pp. 57, 62, 67 (addressing lack of access to judicial protection in proceedings involving expulsion of nationals; linking right to freely enter and remain in one’s own country under Article VIII of the Declaration to the rights to a fair trial and due process under Articles XVIII and XXVI). See also, Report Nº 47/96, Case 11.436, Cuba, in Annual Report of the IACHR 1996, OEA/Ser.L/V/ II.95, Doc. 7 rev., 14 March 1997, at para. 91, (citing Annual Report of the IACHR 1994, "Cuba," at p. 162, and addressing failure of State to observe freedom of movement of nationals under Article II via denial of exit permits from which no appeal is allowed). In the context of the American Convention, see generally, IACHR, Resolution Nº 30/81, Case 7378, Guatemala, in Annual Report of the IACHR 1980-81, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.54, doc. 9 rev. 1, 16 Oct. 1981, p. 60, at 62 (addressing denial of right to judicial protection in expulsion of foreigner absent any form of due process), Report Nº 49/99, Case 11.610, Mexico, Annual Report of the IACHR 1998, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.102, Doc. 6 rev., 16 April 1999, Vol. II.