59. The Court has also maintained that due process must be guaranteed to everyone, regardless of their migratory status, because the broad scope of the intangible nature of due process applies not only ratione materiae but also ratione personae without any discrimination. 71 Regarding the content of the right to due process, enshrined in Article 8 of the American Convention, the Court has established that it refers to the set of requirements that must be observed in the procedural instances so that individuals are in a position to adequately defend their rights before any act of the State, adopted by any public authority, be it administrative, legislative or judicial, that may impair them. 72 It has further indicated that the set of minimum guarantees of due process applies in the determination of rights and obligations of a “civil, labor, fiscal, or any other nature.” 73 In other words, “due process of law must be respected in any act or omission on the part of State bodies in any proceeding, whether of an administrative, punitive or jurisdictional nature.” 74 60. Therefore, the Court has established that the State must respect the minimum guarantees of due process in immigration proceedings that may result in the expulsion of aliens, which are the same as those established in paragraph 2 of Article 8 of the American Convention. 75 It has further held that such proceedings must not be discriminatory, and the persons subject to them must also enjoy the following minimum guarantees: a) to be informed expressly and formally of the charges against them and the reasons for the expulsion or deportation. This notice must include information on their rights, such as: i) the possibility of explaining their reasons and contesting the charges against them, and ii) the possibility of requesting and receiving consular assistance, legal advice and, if appropriate, translation or interpretation services; b) if an unfavorable decision is taken, the right to request a review of their case before the competent authority and to appear before that authority in that regard, and c) to receive formal legal notice of the eventual expulsion decision, which must be duly reasoned pursuant to the law. 76 A.2.2. Right to personal liberty in immigration expulsion proceedings 61. Furthermore, the Court has established the incompatibility with the American Convention of the punitive deprivation of liberty in order to control migratory flows, in Cf. Advisory Opinion OC-18/03, supra, para. 163, and Case of expelled Dominicans and Haitians v. Dominican Republic, supra, para. 351. 71 72 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 Cuya Lavy et al. v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 28, 2021. Series C No. 438, para. 133. 73 Case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru, supra, para. 70, and Case of the National Federation of Maritime and Port Workers (FEMAPOR) v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits and reparations. Judgment of February 1, 2022. Series C No. 448, para. 80. 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 the former employees of the Judiciary v. Guatemala. Preliminary objections, merits and reparations. Judgment of November 17, 2021. Series C No. 445, para. 63. 74 Cf. Case of Vélez Loor v. Panama. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 23, 2010. Series C No. 218, para. 142, and Case of the Pacheco Tineo Family v. Bolivia. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2013. Series C No. 272, para. 132. 75 Cf. Case of Nadege Dorzema et al. v. Dominican Republic. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 24, 2012. Series C No. 251, para. 175, and Case of expelled Dominicans and Haitians v. Dominican Republic, supra, para. 356. 76 20