guarantees of due process and respect for human dignity, whatever the juridical situation of the migrant.”213 155. Therefore, the exercise of the State’s power to establish its immigration policy should fully respect the prohibition of collective expulsion of aliens contained in Article 22(9) of the American Convention, and the guarantees intrinsic to the procedures for the expulsion or deportation of aliens, especially those derived from the rights to due process and to judicial protection. b) Due process in cases of deportation or expulsion 156. The Court has indicated that the right to due process, established in Article 8 of the American Convention, refers to the series of requirements that must be observed in the procedural instances to ensure that individuals are able to defend their rights satisfactorily in the face of any act of the State that could harm these rights.214 157. Similarly, in its consistent case law, the Court has considered that all the minimum guarantees of due process of law apply when determining rights and obligations of a “civil, labor, fiscal or any other nature.”215 In other words, “any act or omission by the State organs in a proceeding, whether this is administrative, punitive or jurisdictional, must respect due process of law.”216 158. In the Advisory Opinion on the Right to Information on Consular Assistance within the framework of the due process of law, the Court referred to the scope of the right to due process, stating that: To accomplish its objectives, the judicial process must recognize and correct any real disadvantages that those brought before the bar might have, thus observing the principle of equality before the law and the courts and the corollary principle prohibiting discrimination. The presence of real disadvantages necessitates countervailing measures that help to reduce or eliminate the obstacles and deficiencies that impair or diminish an effective defense of one’s interests.217 159. On migratory matters, the Court considers that the right to due process of law should be guaranteed to all persons irrespective of their migration status,218 since “[t]he broad scope of the preservation of due process applies not only ratione materiae but also ratione personae, without any discrimination.”219 This means that “due process of law should be recognized as one of the minimum guarantees to be offered to all migrants, regardless of their migratory status,”220 so that migrants are allowed to assert their rights and defend 213 Cf. Case of Vélez Loor v. Panama, supra, para. 100. See also Juridical Status and Rights of Undocumented Migrants, supra, paras. 118 and 119. 214 Cf. Case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 31, 2001. Series C No. 71, para. 69, and Case of Vélez Loor v. Panama, supra, para. 142. 215 Cf. Case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru, supra, para. 70, and Case of Vélez Loor v. Panama, supra, para. 142. 216 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 2, 2001. Series C No. 72, para. 124 217 The Right to Information on Consular Assistance in the Framework of the Guarantees of Due Process of Law, supra, para. 119. 218 Cf. Juridical Status and Rights of Undocumented Migrants, supra, para. 121. 219 Juridical Status and Rights of Undocumented Migrants, supra, para. 122. 220 Juridical Status and Rights of Undocumented Migrants, supra, para. 122 45