159. The Court considers that, in accordance with the guarantees established in Articles 8, 22(7), 22(8) and 25 of the Convention, and taking into account the UNHCR guidelines and criteria, asylum seeks must have access to proceedings to determine this status that permit a proper examination of their request in keeping with the guarantees contained in the American Convention217 and in other applicable international instruments, which, in cases such as this one, entail the following obligations for the States: a) They must guarantee the applicant the necessary facilities, 218 including the services of a competent interpreter,219 as well as, if appropriate, access to legal assistance and representation,220 in order to submit their request to the authorities. Thus, the applicant must receive the necessary guidance concerning the procedure to be followed,221 in words and in a way that he can understand and, if appropriate, he should be given the opportunity to contact a UNHCR representative;222 b) The request must be examined, objectively, within the framework of the relevant procedure, by a competent and clearly identified authority, 223 and requires a personal interview;224 Refugees of June 3, 2008, article 24 (Nicaragua); Executive Decree No. 23 of February 10, 1998, article 31 (Panama); Decree Law No. 918, of August 14, 2002, article 15 (El Salvador); Decree No. 1,182 – Regulations for implementation of the right to asylum of May 30, 2012, article 36 (Ecuador); Government Decision 383-2001, of September 14, 2001, article 28 (Guatemala); Decree No. 4503 of November 19, 2009, articles 3 and 4 (Colombia); Law No. 18,076 – Right to asylum and refugees of January 5, 2007, article 38 (Uruguay); Regulations to the Law on refugees and complementary protection of February 21, 2012, article 27 (Mexico); and Decree No. 2,491 of 2003. Regulations to the Organic Law on refugees and asylees, article 10. (Venezuela). 217 Cf., mutatis mutandi Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Merits, reparations and costs, paras. 126 and 127, and Case of Nadege Dorzema et al. v. Dominican Republic, para. 175. 218 Cf. mutatis mutandi, Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico. Preliminary objection, Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 26, 2010. Series C No. 220, Para. 154; and Case of López Mendoza v. Venezuela. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 1, 2011. Series C No. 233, para. 117. See also: United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Fair and Efficient Asylum Procedures: A Non-Exhaustive Overview of Applicable International Standards, 2 September 2005, p. 3. 219 Cf., mutatis mutandi, Case of Fernández Ortega et al. v. Mexico. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 30, 2010 Series C No. 215, para. 195. See also: United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Fair and Efficient Asylum Procedures: A Non-Exhaustive Overview of Applicable International Standards, 2 September 2005, p. 3. 220 Cf., mutatis mutandi, Case of Barreto Leiva v. Venezuela. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 17, 2009. Series C No. 206, para. 62, and Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico, Para. 155. See also: United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Fair and Efficient Asylum Procedures: A Non-Exhaustive Overview of Applicable International Standards, 2 September 2005, p. 3. 221 Cf. Executive Committee of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Determination of Refugee Status, No. 8 (XXVIII) (1977), para. e.ii 222 Cf. Executive Committee of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Determination of Refugee Status, No. 8 (XXVIII) (1977), para. e.iv. 223 Cf., mutatis mutandi, Case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 31, 2001. Series C No. 71, para. 77, and Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. v. Chile. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 154, Para. 130. See also: Executive Committee of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Determination of Refugee Status, No. 8 (XXVIII) (1977), para. e.iii. In this regard, the comment of expert witness Ceriani is relevant that “asylum seekers may be subject simultaneously to proceedings relating to both their application for refugee status and their migratory situation. On numerous occasions, the rights of […] asylum seekers and, consequently, their adequate protection, are determined by immigration procedures and decisions. In addition, the categorization of a person as a migrant, asylum seeker, or refugee, may depend, on the one hand, on the scope and interpretation of the international norms under the laws and practice of each country and, on the other, the circumstances of each case may make the formal distinctions between one or other category both blurred and inadequate. Similarly, in the practice, immigration and asylum procedures may be closely related […], which may lead […] to the increase of the dangers resulting from rejection at the border or a deportation measure. But also because, on many occasions, the denial of a request for asylum is based on an irregular migratory situation, which leads to an immigration proceeding (for residence or, according to the law and practice of each country, for deportation). In any case, the application of the criteria that provides the greatest protection to the 53