1806, presented through a communication dated March 12, 1974, denounces the arbitrary arrest of a Bolivian student in Cochabamba and the illegal search and seizure of his personal effects and documents. Latter the student was allegedly transferred to the La Paz prison.
The Commission, in a note of April 8,1974, requested that the Government of Bolivia provide the pertinent information, in accordance with the provisions of Articles 42 and 44 of its Regulations.
The Commission considered the status of this case at its thirty-fourth session (October 1974) and in view of the fact that the Government of Bolivia had not replied to the request for information, it decided to repeat its request through a cable of October 24, 1974, and inform the claimant of this decision.
Pursuant to this decision, a note was sent to the Government of Bolivia on October 24, 1974, and a letter was sent to the claimant on October 31, 1974.
The Government of Bolivia acknowledged receipt of the cable of October 24 through a note dated November 11, 1974. In note of November 13 (No. DGAJ-255/154), provided the following information:
"In response to your cable, unnumbered, dated October 25, 1974, I have the honor to call to your attention official letter S.I.E. No. 1243/74, dated October 31, 1974, which the head of the S.I.E., Major FAB Emilio Arabe Claure, sent to the Chancellery;
MINISTRY OF THE INTERIOR-------- S.I.E. No.1243/74. La Paz, October 31, 1974.--------Addressed to Mr. Marcelo Ostria Trigo.-------- DEPUTY SECRETARY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS. City.- Dr. Ostria Trigo: I am replying to your note DGAJ 243/255, in which you make reference to the arrest of J. RAMIRO GARABITO SAAVEDRA, a student, who was brought before the Common Court on January 2 of this year, and later released on May 15.- Respectfully. Fdo. My. F.A.B. Emilio Arabe Claure.------CHIEF OF THE SIE."
For his part, the claimant, in a communication dated November 7, 1974, informed the Commission with regard to settlement of the case of his son, thanking it for the measures it had taken.
At the thirty-fifth session (May 1975) the Commission noted the above cited communication, as well as the status of the case; in view of the fact that the case had reached a favorable settlement based on a recognition of the human right allegedly violated, it decided to file the case without further processing.