31 the minimum guarantees of due process. As the IACHR has found, it “require[s] that the person 129 concerned be accorded the minimum guarantees necessary to effectively state his or her claim.” 140. Specifically, the Commission has determined that the right to seek asylum necessarily requires that asylum seekers have the opportunity to effectively state their claim before a fully competent 130 decision-maker. This authority should, furthermore, be independent, impartial, suitable, and sufficiently trained in “establishing the relevant facts, and interpreting and applying the relevant norms.” This point is particularly relevant where the effectiveness of refugee determination processes is concerned, in that “ascertaining the specific facts of an individual’s circumstances within the context of a country situation which may well be complicated, unclear and unstable poses particular challenges, involving crucial content-based assessments concerning the credibility, reliability and relevance of documentary and 131 testimonial evidence presented.” Furthermore, in the terms described above regarding the obligation to provide grounds, any determination in this respect should be duly reasoned as part of the right to a hearing with due guarantees. 141. With respect to other guarantees envisaged in article 8(2) of the American Convention, the Commission considers that, in similar fashion to the provisions that govern the right of defense [e.g. articles 8(2)(b), (c), (d), (e), and (f)], in a refugee determination procedure it is essential that the applicant receive the necessary information on the procedure to be followed, be provided with the necessary means to state their case to the appropriate authorities, and be directly notified of any decisions issued in 132 the proceeding. The proceeding should also include a real opportunity to present evidence on the situation of risk invoked by the petitioner. Summary determinations on the refugee status of a person are inadmissible under the American Convention. Where immigration officials constitute a kind of "counterpart" to the applicant in the framework of the proceeding, the latter should have the possibility to rebut the arguments and evidence offered by such officials. The scope of the "necessary means to present their case to the appropriate authorities”—for instance if the state is required to furnish free counsel—constitutes an element to be assessed on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the particular characteristics of the specific proceeding and its requirements. 142. As to the possibility of appealing the decision, precisely because of the nature of the factual determinations and, as noted above, the possible effects of such determinations, unfavorable decisions on a claim for recognition of refugee status should be subject to review with automatic 133 suspensive effect. In this connection, the UNHCR has strongly urged all States to ensure that refused refugee claimants have access to a merits-based review.134 143. The Commission believes that these standards are applicable even in those cases where “exclusion clauses” might be relevant, the considerations for which “may well be interconnected to the 135 basis of the individual’s claim for asylum." Moreover, the Commission has referred to the “much lower 129 IACHR, Report on the Situation of Human Rights of Asylum Seekers within the Canadian Refugee Determination System. OEA/Ser.L/V/II.106. Doc. 40. Rev. 1. February 28, 2000. par. 60. 130 IACHR, Report on the Situation of Human Rights of Asylum Seekers within the Canadian Refugee Determination System. OEA/Ser.L/V/II.106. Doc. 40. Rev. 1. February 28, 2000. par. 68. 131 IACHR, Report on the Situation of Human Rights of Asylum Seekers within the Canadian Refugee Determination System. OEA/Ser.L/V/II.106. Doc. 40. Rev. 1. February 28, 2000. par. 104. 132 See Office of the UNHCR, Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status (reedited, Geneva, 133 European Court of Human Rights, M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece, Application no. 30696/09, 21 January 2011. para. 1992) 293. 134 UNHCR. Rec. No. 8 (XXVIII) "Determination of Refugee Status," (1977), at secs. (e)(vi) and (vii). As the UNHCR has said: If the applicant is not recognized, he should be given a reasonable time to appeal for a formal reconsideration of the decision, either to the same or to a different authority, whether administrative or judicial, according to the prevailing system. The applicant should .… also be permitted to remain in the country while an appeal to a higher administrative authority or to the courts is pending 135 IACHR, Report on the Situation of Human Rights of Asylum Seekers within the Canadian Refugee Determination System. OEA/Ser.L/V/II.106. Doc. 40. Rev. 1. February 28, 2000. par. 68.