44 detention in order to “provide real guarantees that the detainee is not exclusively at the mercy of the 202 authority that placed him in custody.” . 185. The Commission notes that although the State does not make any allegations with regard to the detention and expulsion of Joseph Pierre, Selafoi Pierre, Silvie Thermeus, Roland Israel, Rose Marie Dol, Josué Maxime, Michel Florantin, Cecilia Petithomme/Estilien, Sonide Nora, Alphonse Oremis, Renaud Timat and Honorio Winique, the evidence in the case file indicates that the Director of Intelligence reported that, on the day of the incidents, there were eleven detainees. For his part, the th Commander of the 10 Infantry Battalion confirmed the information on the same date, adding that one of them was under age, and stated that the detainees “had been sent to the Migration Office […] to be returned to their territory.” However, the State did not provide any evidence with regard to the detention or the alleged transfer of the detainees to the Migration Office. 186. In that regard, the Commission observes that even assuming that the detainees were taken to the Migration Office, officials in that office cannot be considered judges or officers legally authorized to discharge judicial responsibilities. Furthermore, the information in the case file does not provide any evidence that the authorities provided the detainees the guarantees established in Article 7 of the American Convention. 187. Likewise, based on the evidence in the case file, the IACHR observes, first of all, that there is no record that the detention was even registered or that proceedings were initiated. Second, the Commission notes that there is no evidence that the detainees were ever informed of the reasons for the detention, of the charges against them, of their legal rights, that they were brought before a judge or another official authorized by law to discharge judicial responsibilities, or notified of the date in which they would be tried. They were not allowed to make contact with any person either, including the Haitian Consul. Third, the IACHR notes that there is no evidence that the detainees were made aware of the legal remedies available to them, or that they were allowed to explain their situation as to whether they were seeking asylum, refuge, or the reasons for entering Dominican territory. 188. On the contrary, the IACHR observes that the detainees were transported to two prisons where they were threatened with field work or pay a bribe in order to be taken back to Haiti, and once the payment was made, they were expelled from the country without being provided even minimum guarantees, which fits within the pattern of expulsions of Haitian nationals described in the context section. The State did not refute these facts. 189. Along the same lines, the IACHR points out that the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detentions has established that “in cases where individuals have been detained, expelled or returned without having been afforded judicial guarantees, their detention and later expulsion shall be 203 considered arbitrary.” . On the other hand, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Migrants has urged States to avoid the use of detention centers and legal mechanisms, and methods to intercept and/or deport migrants that restrict judicial control over the legality of detentions and other 204 rights. . 190. Likewise, the Commission recalls that although many of the judicial guarantees established in Article 8 of the American Convention incorporate language characteristic of criminal procedures, similarly, and due to the consequences that may result from migration proceedings, those 205 guarantees should be strictly applied in these proceedings as well. In that sense, in considering a 202 IACHR, Rafael Ferrer-Mazorra, et al. vs. United States, Report No. 51/01 (merits), Case No. 9903, par. 232 (April 4, 2001), available at http://www.cidh.oas.org/annualrep/2000sp/CapituloIII/Fondo/EEUU9903.htm 203 Working Group on Arbitrary Detentions, Conclusions and Recommendations, E/CN.4/2004/3, par. 86 (December 15, 2003), available at http://www.acnur.org/biblioteca/pdf/3295.pdf. 204 United Nations, Report of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Migrants, Gabriela Rodríguez Pizarro, E/CN.4/2003/85, par. 75(h) (December 30, 2002), available in English at: http://www.unhchr.ch/Huridocda/Huridoca.nsf/0/3ff50c339f54a354c1256cde004bfbd8/$FILE/G0216255.pdf. 205 IACHR, Second Progress Report of the Special Rapporteur on Migrant Workers, Annual Report 2000, par. 90 (April 16, 2001), available at http://www.cidh.oas.org/annualrep/2000sp/cap.6.htm; see IACHR, Wayne Smith vs.. United States, Report No. Continúa…