59 not sufficient that it be provided for by the Constitution or by law or that it be formally recognized, but rather it must be truly effective in establishing whether there has been a violation of human rights and in 253 providing redress.” According to the jurisprudence constante of the Court, any remedy that is illusory due to the general conditions of the country or the specific circumstances of a given case cannot be 254 deemed to be an effective remedy. 280. Similarly, the Court has held that Article 25(1) of the Convention establishes the States’ obligation to offer an effective judicial remedy to all persons within their jurisdiction against acts that violate those persons’ fundamental rights. The existence of this guarantee “is one of the fundamental pillars not only of the American Convention, but of the very rule of law in a democratic society in the terms 255 of the Convention.” 281. With specific reference to alien deportation proceedings, the Commission has held that the affected persons must have the right to a hearing and adequate opportunity to exercise their right of defense. While this may not require the presence of all the guarantees necessary for a fair criminal trial, a minimum threshhold of due process guarantees must be afforded. The Commission’s understanding is that these include the right to be assisted by counsel, if one so desires, or by a representative in whom one has confidence, with sufficient time to determine what the charges are and a reasonable time period 256 in which to prepare and formally file the response and to find and offer evidence in one’s defense. Hearings are to be public to the extent that the due process guarantees and justice so require, which invariably includes the need to keep the public’s trust and avoid any possibility of a miscarriage of justice 257 in those proceedings. 282. With respect to the right to appeal in these cases, the Commission has held, citing the European Court of Human Rights, that because of the nature of the factual determinations, the possible effects of such determinations and the irreversibility in case a deportation is decided, unfavorable decisions on a claim for recognition of refugee status should be subject to review with automatic 258 suspensive effect. 283. The Commission has also written that similar minimum guarantees of justice must be observed in cases involving the administrative detention of aliens undergoing deportation proceedings. These guarantees require, inter alia, that the decision-maker meets prevailing standards of independence and impartiality, that the detainee is given an opportunity to introduce evidence and to know and refute the claims of the opposing party, and that the detainee is given an opportunity to be represented by counsel or other representative. Such requirements will not be considered fulfilled where, for example, 253 I/A Court H.R.. Judicial Guarantees in States of Emergency (Arts. 27(2), 25 and 8 of the American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-9/87 of October 6, 1987. Series A No. 9, paragraph 24; Case of the “Five Pensioners” v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 28, 2003. Series C No. 98, paragraph 136. 254 I/A Court H.R. Case of Baldeón García V. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of April 6, 2006. Series C No. 147, paragraph 145, Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. v. Chile. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 154, paragraph 111. 255 I/A Court H.R., Case of Castillo Páez v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of November 3, 1997. Series C No. 34, paragraph 82; Case of Claude Reyes et al. v. Chile. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 19, 2006. Series C No. 151, paragraph 131; Case of Castañeda Gutman v. Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 6, 2008. Series C No. 183, paragraph 78. 256 IACHR, Report No. 34/98 (Admissibility) , Case 11.610, Loren Laroye Riebe Star, Jorge Barón Guttlein and Rodolfo Izal Elorz (Mexico), May 5, 1998, paragraphs 70, 71. See also, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 13 (“An alien lawfully in the territory of a State Party to the present Covenant may be expelled therefrom only in pursuance of a decision reached in accordance with law and shall, except where compelling reasons of national security otherwise require, be allowed to submit the reasons against his expulsion and to have his case reviewed by, and be represented for the purpose before, the competent authority or a person or persons especially designated by the competent authority.”) 257 IACHR, Report on Terrorism and Human Rights, OEA/Ser.L/V/ll.116 Doc. 5 rev. 1 corr., October 22, 2002, paragraph 403. 258 IACHR, Case 12.474, Report 136/11 (Merits), Members of the Pacheco Tineo Family (Bolivia), October 31 2011, para. 142, citing European Court of Human Rights, M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece, Application no. 30696/09, 21 January 2011. para. 293.