60 authorities fail to define in sufficient detail or otherwise properly justify the grounds upon which an individual has been deprived of his or her liberty or where they place the onus on the detainee to justify 259 his or her release. 284. The Commission also concluded that proceedings involving the detention, status or removal of aliens from a state’s territory by exclusion, expulsion or extradition require individualized and careful assessment and is subject to the same basic and non-derogable procedural protections applicable 260 in proceedings of a criminal nature. 285. The organs of the inter-American human rights system have affirmed the obligation of States to act with due diligence when human rights violations occur. This duty involves four obligations: prevention, investigation, punishment and reparation for the human rights violations. The Court has written that: This obligation implies the duty of States Parties to organize the governmental apparatus and, in general, all the structures through which public power is exercised, so that they are capable of juridically ensuring the free and full enjoyment of human rights. As a consequence of this obligation, the States must prevent, investigate and punish any violation of the rights recognized by the Convention and, moreover, if possible attempt to restore the right violated and provide 261 compensation as warranted for damages resulting from the violation. 286. The States’ obligation to act with due diligence includes providing access to suitable and 262 effective judicial remedies when human rights are violated. The Inter-American Court has held that any person whose human rights have been violated has the right “to obtain clarification of the facts relating to the violations and the corresponding responsibilities from the competent State organs, through the 263 investigation and prosecution established in Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention.” The Inter-American Court has also written that “the power of access to justice must ensure, within a reasonable period of time, the right of the alleged victims or their next of kin that everything possible be done to know the truth 264 of what happened and that the possible responsible parties be punished.” 287. The petitioners alleged that the victims did not have a forum to which they could turn to prove their legal status or establish how long they had resided in the Dominican Republic. Nor did they have the guarantees of due process. Domestic law did not afford them an effective judicial recourse that would have enabled them to challenge the Dominican authorities’ decision to expel them or question the legality of their detention. The State, for its part, relied on the repatriation procedure in effect, without considering each victim’s specific situation. 288. The Commission observes that the State has not presented any evidence to corroborate the fact that the repatriation procedure in effect at the time of the events was actually followed in the case of the victims. The Commission observes that the situation of the victims was not thoroughly investigated; no arrest warrants were issued stating the specific facts and reasons for their deportation; no evidence was offered to show that deportation was called for; the victims never had an opportunity to make a 259 IACHR, Case 9903, Report No. 51/01 (Admissibility and Merits), Rafael Ferrer-Mazorra et al. (United States), April 4, 2001, paragraphs 213-231. See also, Report on Terrorism and Human Rights, OEA/Ser.L/V/ll.116 Doc. 5 rev. 1 corr., October 22, 2002, paragraph 406. 260 IACHR, Report on Terrorism and Human Rights, OEA/Ser.L/V/ll.116 Doc. 5 rev. 1 corr., October 22, 2002, paragraph 409. 261 I/A Court H.R., Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. 4, paragraph 166. Judgment of July 29, 1988, Series C No. 262 IACHR, Access to Justice for Women Victims of Violence in the Americas, OEA/Ser. L/V/II. doc.68, January 20, 2007. 263 I/A Court H.R., Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru, Merits. Judgment of March 14, 2001, Series C No. 75, paragraph 48. 264 I/A Court H.R., Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160, paragraph 382, citing the Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 1, 2006. Series C No. 148, paragraph 289, and others.