and development of the child, appears unreasonable or excessive in relation to the advantages obtained by forcing the parent to leave the territory because of an administrative offense. 105 72. The Court has held that any administrative or judicial organ that must decide on family separation owing to expulsion based on the migratory status of one or both parents must, when weighing all the factors, consider the particular circumstances of the specific case, and guarantee an individual decision in keeping with the parameters already described, evaluating and determining the child’s best interest. 106 In this regard, the Court has found it to be essential that, when making this assessment, States ensure the right of children to have the opportunity to be heard based on their age and maturity, and that their views are duly taken into account in those administrative or judicial proceedings in which a decision may be adopted that entails the expulsion of their parents. If the child is a national of the receiving country, but one or neither of her or his parents is, it is necessary to hear the child in order to understand the impact that the expulsion of the parent(s) may have on her or him. Also, granting the child the right to be heard is fundamental in order to determine whether there is an alternative that is more appropriate to her or his best interest. 107 A.2.4. Analysis of the specific case 73. Firstly, the Court recalls that the Federal Judge granted Ms. Habbal Argentine nationality on April 4, 1992. Likewise, that on May 11, 1992, the National Population and Immigration Department ordered Ms. Habbal’s expulsion, after she had obtained Argentine nationality, and before her citizenship was revoked. In this regard, the Court notes that Article 22(5) of the American Convention prohibits the expulsion of individuals from the territory of which they are nationals in the following terms: “no one can be expelled from the territory of the State of which he is a national.” The Court also recalls that the State is obligated to respect the minimum guarantees of due process in expulsion proceedings, including those set forth in Article 8(2) of the Convention (supra, paras. 58 to 60). The Court notes that the National Population and Immigration Department issued Resolution 1088 on its own initiative, without notifying Ms. Habbal at any time during the proceedings. This failure to notify Ms. Habbal meant that the alleged victim was unaware of the existence of the proceedings to expel her and the reasons for the action taken, and was denied the possibility of receiving legal assistance, being heard during the proceedings, and submitting her case for review by a competent authority. 74. Secondly, the Court confirms that Monnawar Al Kassar, Hifaa Al Kassar and Natasha Al Kassar were children at the time when their expulsion was ordered, and that - unlike Ms. Habbal - they were not Argentine citizens, but permanent residents. In this regard, the Court recalls that Article 22(6) of the Convention provides that “an alien lawfully in the territory of a State party to this Convention may be expelled from it only pursuant to a decision reached in accordance with the law.” As already noted, while States may establish immigration policies, any immigration proceedings used to expel individuals, such as the one in which the alleged victims found themselves, must respect the minimum guarantees of due process (supra, paras. 58 to 60), taking into account the special circumstances in which children find themselves (supra, paras. 65 to 72). 105 Cf. Advisory Opinion OC-21/14, supra, para. 280. 106 Cf. Advisory Opinion OC-21/14, supra, para. 281. 107 Cf. Advisory Opinion OC-21/14, supra, para. 282. 25