24 114. The Commission underscores what the Inter-American Court stated in its Advisory Opinion 18 on the “Juridical Condition and Rights of the Undocumented Migrants” with respect to the relationship between the right to equality and nondiscrimination and due process for undocumented migrants: [...] for “the due process of law” a defendant must be able to exercise his rights and defend his interests effectively and in full procedural equality with other defendants. To accomplish its objectives, the judicial process must recognize and correct any real disadvantages that those brought before the bar might have, thus observing the principle of equality before the law and the courts and the corollary principle prohibiting discrimination. The presence of real disadvantages necessitates countervailing measures that help to reduce or eliminate the obstacles and deficiencies that impair or diminish an effective defense of one’s interests. Absent those countervailing measures, widely recognized in various stages of the proceeding, one could hardly say that those who have the disadvantages enjoy a true opportunity for justice and the benefit of 94 the due process of law equal to those who do not have those disadvantages. 115. More recently, in its Report on Immigration in the United States Detention and Due Process, the Commission observed that the due process rights set forth in article 8 of the American Convention establish a baseline of due process to which all immigrants, whatever their situation, have a 95 right. In the same report, the Commission noted the following: The right to a hearing, with due guarantees and within a reasonable time by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal; prior notification in detail to the accused of the charges against him; the right not to be compelled to be a witness against oneself or to plead guilty; the right of the accused to be assisted without charge by a translator or interpreter; the right of the accused to be assisted by legal counsel of his own choosing, and to communicate freely and privately with his counsel; the right of the defense to examine witnesses present in the court and to obtain their appearance as witnesses, experts or other persons who may throw light on the facts; and the right to appeal the judgment to a higher court. While many of these guarantees are articulated in a language that is more germane to criminal proceedings, they must be strictly enforced in immigration proceedings as well, given the circumstances of such proceedings and their 96 consequences. 116. Within the framework of the right to a hearing “with due guarantees” the organs of the system have been emphasizing the obligation to provide grounds. In this regard, the Court has held that 97 the grounds are “the reasoned justification that allows a conclusion to be reached.” As the Court found: The duty to state grounds is a guarantee linked to the proper administration of justice, protecting the right of citizens to be tried for the reasons provided by law, and giving credibility to the legal 98 decisions adopted in the framework of a democratic society. Decisions adopted by domestic 94 I/A Court H.R. Juridical Condition and Rights of the Undocumented Migrants. Advisory Opinion OC-18/03 of September 17, 2003, Series A, No. 18. par. 121. 95 IACHR, Report on Immigration in the United States: Detention and Due Process. OEA/Ser.L/V/II. Doc. 78/10. December 30, 2010, par. 58. Cf. IACHR, Second Progress Report of the Special Rapporteurship on Migrant Workers and Their Families in the Hemisphere, Annual Report 2000, par. 90 (April 16, 2001); see IACHR, Wayne Smith, United States, Report No. 56/06 (Admissibility), Case No. 12.562, par. 51 (July 20, 2006); IACHR, Loren Laroye Riebe Star, Jorge Alberto Barón Guttlein and Randolfo Izal Elorz, Mexico, Report No. 49/99 (Merits), Case No. 11.610, par. 46 (April 13, 1999) 96 IACHR, Report on Immigration Doc. 78/10. December 30, 2010, par. 57. in the United States: Detention and Due Process. OEA/Ser.L/V/II. 97 I/A Court H.R. Case of López Mendoza v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 1, 2011, Series C No. 233. par. 141; Case of Escher et al. v. Brazil. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 6, 2009. Series C, No. 200. par. 208; and I/A Court H.R., Case of Chocrón Chocrón v. Venezuela, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 1, 2011. Series C, No. 227. par. 118. 98 I/A Court H.R. Case of López Mendoza v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 1, 2011, Series C No. 233. par. 141. Cf. Case of Apitz-Barbera et al. (“First Court of Administrative Disputes”) v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 5, 2008. Series C, No. 182, par. 77. The European Court has so ruled in the Case of Suominen: “The Court then reiterates that, according to its established case-law reflecting a principle linked to Continues…