43 same treaty, given that it did not guarantee that Mr. Vélez Loor could exercise the available remedies to question the lawfulness of his arrest. d) Proceeding before the National Office of Immigration and Naturalization between November 12 and December 6, 2002 140. The Commission and the representatives sustained that the measure taken against Mr. Vélez Loor is of a criminal nature; therefore, the guarantees of due process established in Article 8 of the American Convention should have been respected in the proceeding before the National Office of Immigration. Similarly, the State explained that, by the time of the events, the Supreme Court of Justice of Panama had established that any administrative act that would infringe fundamental rights should address and provide the victim with the mere guarantees of the judicial proceedings. As a consequence, “[t]he issuance of Order N° 7306 of December 6, 2002, despite being a formal administrative act, was destined to address and provide, in fact, the procedural guarantees inherent to criminal proceedings, insofar as its application affected fundamental rights of liberty,” “which did not occur in the instant case.” 141. Even when the exercise of legal functions is incumbent on the Judiciary, in some States other public bodies or authorities may also exercise, in some cases, judicial functions and take decisions, like the one of the instant case, that affect fundamental rights, like the personal liberty of Mr. Vélez Loor. However, the intervention of the administration in such cases has boundaries that may not be surpassed, which occupies an eminent position for the respect of human rights, hence it is necessary that the conduct of the administration be regulated.139 142. That is why it is necessary that any administrative, legislative, or judicial authority, whose decisions may affect the rights of persons, adopt them in strict compliance with the guarantees of due process of law.140 Hence, Article 8 of the Convention contemplates the guidelines of due process of law, which is composed of all the requirements that must be observed by procedural instances, to ensure that the individual may defend himself or herself adequately with regard to any act of the State that may affect his rights.141 In addition, the Court has interpreted that the set of minimum guarantees established in Article 8(2) of the Convention also applies when determining the rights and obligations of “a civil, labor, fiscal or any other nature.”142 For this reason, the administration may not dictate punitive administrative actions without granting the sanctioned individuals said minimum guarantees, which apply mutatis mutandis as appropriate.143 143. In this respect, the Court recalls that the right to due process of law must be recognized as one of the minimum guarantees that should be offered to any migrant, irrespective of his migratory status.144 This implies that the State must ensure every 139 Case of Baena Ricardo et al v. Panamá. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 2, 2001. Series C No. 72, para. 126. 140 Cf. Case of the Constitutional Court, supra note 110, para. 71; Case of Baena Ricardo et al., supra note 139, para. 127; Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community, supra note 92, para. 82, and Case of of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community, supra note 130, para. 62. 141 Cf. Judicial Guarantees in States of Emergency (Arts. 27(2), 25 and (8) American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-9/87 of October 6, 1987. Series A No. 9, para. 27; Case of Claude Reyes et al., supra note 110, para. 116, and Case of Yatama, supra note 38, para. 147. 142 Case of the Constitutional Court, supra note 110, para. 70; Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Perú. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of February 6, 2001. Series C No. 74, para. 103, and Case of Baena Ricardo et al., supra note 139, para. 125. 143 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al., supra note 139, para. 128. See also, Second Progress Report of the Rapporteur on Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families in the Hemisphere, OEA/Ser./L/V/II.111 doc. 20 rev. of April 16, 2001, paras. 98 a 100. 144 Cf. Right of Undocumented Migrants, supra note, para. 121 and 122.