35 107. Unlike the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms,106 the American Convention does not set a limitation to the exercise of the guarantee established in Article 7(5) of the Convention based on the reasons or circumstances under which the person has been arrested or detained. Therefore, by virtue of the principle pro persona, this guarantee must be satisfied as long as the detention or arrest of a person is based on his o her immigration status, in accordance with the principles of judicial control and procedural immediacy.107 To constitute a real control mechanism in the face of unlawful and arbitrary detention, the judicial review must be carried out promptly and in such a way as to guarantee compliance with the law and the detainee’s effective enjoyment of his rights, taking into account his special vulnerability.108 Likewise, the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention established that “[a]ny […] immigrant placed in custody must be brought promptly before a judicial or other authority.”109 108. This Tribunal considers that, in order to satisfy the guarantee established in Article 7(5) of the Convention in relation to migrants, the domestic legislation must ensure that the officer authorized by law to carry out judicial functions fulfills the requirements of impartiality and independence that must be present in any body authorized to determine the rights and obligations of persons. In this respect, the Tribunal has already established that said requirements must not only be met strictly by judicial bodies, but that the provisions of Article 8(1) of the Convention apply also to the decisions of administrative bodies.110 Since, in relation to this guarantee, the officer has the task of preventing and ending unlawful and arbitrary detentions,111 it is essential that the officer has the authority to order the release of the person if his or her detention is illegal or arbitrary. 109. The Tribunal notes that Decree Law 16 of 1960 established that foreigners would be placed at the disposal of the Director of the Immigration Department of the Ministry of Interior and Justice.112 According to the facts and the evidence of the case, 106 In the European Convention, the right to the promptly brought before a judge or other officer, pursuant to Article 5, paragraph 3, is exclusively related to the category of detainees mentioned in the first paragraph, subparagraph c; that is, the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority of reasonable suspicion of having committed and offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent from committing an offence or fleeing after having done so. 107 Case of Tibi, supra note 27, para. 118; Case of López Álvarez, supra note 98, para. 87, and Case of Palamara Iribarne, supra note 100, para. 221. 108 Cf. Case of Bayarri, supra note 27, para. 67. In the same sense, Eur. Court HR, Iwanczuk v. Poland (Application no. 25196/94) Judgment of 15 November 2001, para. 53. 109 United Nations, Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, Group Report, Annex II, Deliberation No. 5: Situation regarding immigrants and asylum-seekers, 1999, E/CN.4/2000/4, Principle 3. 110 Cf. Case of the Constitutional Court v. Perú. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of January 31, 2001. Series C No. 71, para. 71; Case of Escher et al. v. Brazil. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of July 6, 2009. Series C No. 200. para. 208, and Case of Claude Reyes et al. v. Chile. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 19, 2006. Series C No. 151, para. 119. 111 Cf. Case of Bayarri, supra note 27, para 67. 112 In this regard, Articles 58 and 60 stated: Article 58. “Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 22 of this Decree Law, any foreigner who is found by any authority without valid documents proving their income, residence, or establishment in the country will be placed at the disposal of the Director of the Immigration Department of the Ministry of the Interior and Justice. Said official shall give notice to the alien in writing, of the alien’s obligation to legalize their stay or leave the country on their own within a reasonable time which shall not be less than three (3) days nor more than thirty (30), without detriment to any other penalties established by this Decree Law.” Article 60. “Immigration officials have power to arrest any alien who, in the official’s presence or view, attempts to enter the territory of the Republic in violation of the provisions of this Decree Law or who is found in the country without documents proving their legal entry, residence, or permanence in the country, in accordance with legal requirements. The alien will be placed at the