135. With regard to Article 7(5) of the Convention, which provides that the detention should be reviewed promptly by a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power, the Court has considered that “a judge must guarantee the rights of the detainee, authorize the adoption of precautionary or coercive measures, when strictly necessary and, in general, ensure that the detainee is treated in a manner consistent with the presumption of innocence,”194 as a “guarantee intended to prevent arbitrary or unlawful detention,195 and as a guarantee of the right to life and personal integrity.”196 136. The Court has established that the “American Convention does not establish a limitation to the exercise of the guarantee recognized in Article 7(5) of the Convention based on the reasons or circumstances for which a person has been arrested or detained. Therefore, based on the pro persona principle, this guarantee must be ensured as long as a person is arrested or detained owing to his or her migratory status, in keeping with the principles of judicial control and procedural immediacy. 197 To ensure that it constitutes a real mechanism of control in response to unlawful and arbitrary detentions, the judicial review must be carried out promptly and in such a way that it guarantees compliance with the law and the detainee’s effective enjoyment of his or her rights, taking into account the special vulnerability.198 137. This Court also considers that, in migratory matters, “domestic laws must ensure that the officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power complies with the characteristics of impartiality and independence that must regulate any organ responsible for determining the rights and obligations of the individual. Thus, the Court has already established that the said characteristics must not only be met by the organs that are strictly jurisdictional, but the provisions of Article 8(1) of the Convention apply also to the decisions of administrative organs.”199 Since, with regard to this guarantee, the immigration officer has the task of preventing and ending unlawful and arbitrary detentions, 200 “it is essential that the said officer has the authority to release an individual if his or her detention is illegal or arbitrary.”201 138. The Court also notes that article 8(3)(d) of the 1994 Dominican Constitution, in force at the time of the detentions analyzed, stipulates that: “[a]nyone deprived of their liberty shall be brought before the competent judicial authority within forty-eight hours of their detention or released.”202 139. The Court considers that, according to the arguments of the parties, the detentions took place over less than the 48 hours corresponding to the constitutionally-based time frame established by the Dominican legal system for bringing a detainee before a competent judicial authority. Despite this, the migrants were not released in Dominican Republic, but the military agents unilaterally applied the punishment of expulsion, without the victims 194 Cf. Case of Bayarri v. Argentina. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 30, 2008. Series C No. 187, para. 63, and Case of Vélez Loor v. Panama, supra, para. 105. 195 Cf. Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez v. Honduras. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 7, 2003. Series C No. 99, para. 83, and Case of Vélez Loor v. Panama, supra, para. 105. 196 Cf. Case of Tibi v. Ecuador, para. 118, and Case of Vélez Loor v. Panama, supra, para. 105. 197 Cf. Case of Tibi v. Ecuador, supra, para. 118, and Case of Vélez Loor v. Panama, supra, para. 107. 198 Cf. Case of Bayarri, supra, para. 67, and Case of Vélez Loor v. Panama, supra, para. 107. 199 Case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 31, 2001. Series C No. 71, para. 71, and Case of Vélez Loor v. Panama, supra, para. 107. 200 Cf. Case of Bayarri, supra, para 67, and Case of Vélez Loor v. Panama, supra, para. 108. 201 Case of Vélez Loor v. Panama, supra, para. 108. In this regard, see Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Prison, Principle 11. 202 Constitution of the Dominican Republic, 1994, supra, folio 4112. 41