This “does not mean that no action may be filed against migrants who do not comply with the laws of the State, but that, when taking the corresponding measures, States must respect their human rights, in compliance with the obligation to ensure to all persons subject to the State’s jurisdiction, the exercise and enjoyment of these rights, without any discrimination based on their regular or irregular status, nationality, race, gender, or any other reason. This is even more relevant if it is borne in mind that, under international law, certain limits have been developed to the application of migratory policies that impose, in proceedings on the expulsion or deportation of aliens, strict observance of the guarantees of due process, judicial protection and respect for human dignity, whatsoever the legal situation or migratory status of the migrant.147 130. The Court has indicated that the right to due process, recognized in Article 8 of the American Convention, refers to the series of requirements that must be observed at all procedural stages to ensure that the individual is able to defend his rights adequately in relation to any decision of the State, taken by any public authority, whether administrative, legislative or judicial, that may affect them.148 In addition, the series of minimum guarantees of due process of law apply to the determination of rights and obligations of a “civil, labor, fiscal, or any other nature.”149 In other words, “any act or omission of the State organs during an administrative, punitive or jurisdictional proceeding, must respect due process of law.”150 Regarding the scope of this rights, the Court has indicated that: In order to achieve its objectives, the proceeding must recognize and resolve the factors of real inequality of those who are brought before the courts. This is how the principle of equality before the law and the courts and the related prohibition of discrimination is respected. The presence of conditions of real inequality make it necessary to adopt compensatory measures that help reduce or eliminate the obstacles and deficiencies that prevent or reduce the effective defense of a person’s interests.151 131. In other cases, the Court has analyzed the compatibility of punitive measures of imprisonment in order to control migratory flows, in particular those of an irregular nature, with the American Convention.152 However, since both administrative and penal sanctions are an expression of the punitive powers of the State and, on occasions, may be of a similar nature, 153 Population and Development held in Cairo from 5 to 13 September 1994, A/CONF.171/13, of 18 October 1994, Programme of Action, Chapter X.A. 10.2 to 10.20, available at: http://www.un.org/popin/icpd/conference/offspa/sconf13.html, and United Nations, General Assembly, World Conference on Human Rights held in Vienna, Austria, from 14 to 15 June 1993, A/CONF. 157/23, of 12 July 1993, Declaration and Programme of Action, I.24 and II.33-35, available at: http://www.unhchr.ch/huridocda/huridoca.nsf/%28Symbol%29/A.CONF.157.23.En?OpenDocument. 147 Cf. Case of Vélez Loor v. Panama, para. 100; Case of Nadege Dorzema et al. v. Dominican Republic, para. 154. See also, Juridical Status and Rights of Undocumented Migrants. Advisory Opinion OC-18/03, paras. 118 and 119. In this regard, the Court recalls that States are permitted to grant a different treatment to documented migrants in relation to undocumented migrants, or even between migrants and nationals, proved that this treatment is reasonable, objective and proportionate, and does not harm human rights. Cf. Juridical Status and Rights of Undocumented Migrants. Advisory Opinion OC-18/03, paras. 119 and 121, and Case of Vélez Loor v. Panama, para. 248. 148 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 Chocrón Chocrón v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 1, 2011. Series C No. 227, Para. 115 See also: Case of the Constitutional Tribunal (Camba Campos et al.) v. Ecuador, paras. 167 and 168. 149 Case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru, Merits, reparations and costs, para. 70, and Case of Chocrón Chocrón v. Venezuela, para. 115 150 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 2, 2001. Series C No. 72, para. 124, and Case of Nadege Dorzema et al. v. Dominican Republic, para. 157 151 The Right to Information on Consular Assistance within the Framework of the Guarantees of Due Process of Law. Advisory Opinion OC-16/99 of October 1, 1999. Series A No. 16, para. 119. 152 Cf. Case of Vélez Loor v. Panama, paras. 163 to 172. 153 Cf. Case of Vélez Loor v. Panama, para. 172, and Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Merits, reparations and costs, para. 106. 42