rights and defend their interests effectively and in conditions of procedural equality with others who are justiciable.” 391 352. The Court considers it desirable to stress that the international organs and norms for the protection of human rights all indicate basic guarantees applicable to such proceedings. 392 353. Thus, for example, under the universal system for the protection of human rights, Article 13 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 393 indicates that: 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. 354. The Human Rights Committee, interpreting this article, determined that “[t]he particular rights of [the said] article 13 only protect those aliens who are lawfully in the territory of a State party. […] However, if the legality of an alien's entry or stay is in dispute, any decision on this point leading to his expulsion or deportation ought to be taken in accordance with article 13.” 394 391 Cf. The Right to Information on Consular Assistance within the Framework of the Due Guarantees of Process of Law. Advisory Opinion OC-16/99 of October 1, 1999. Series A No. 16, paras. 117 and 119; Case of Nadege Dorzema et al. v. Dominican Republic, para. 159, and Rights and Guarantees of Children in the Context of Migration and/or in Need of International Protection. OC-21/14, para. 113. 392 Mutatis mutandi, Case of Nadege Dorzema et al. v. Dominican Republic, para. 160. 393 Dominican Republic ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights on January 4, 1978. 394 Human Rights Committee, General Comment 15: The position of aliens under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; adopted at the twenty-seventh session, 1986, para. 9. Regarding the regional systems for the protection of human rights, the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights has considered that: “it is unacceptable to deport individuals without giving them the possibility to plead their case before the competent national courts as this is contrary to the spirit and letter of the Charter [African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights] and international law.” (African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Communication No. 159/96, 22nd Ordinary Session, 11 November 1997, para. 20.). Consequently, in expulsion proceedings during which the basic guarantees of due process of law are not observed, the African Commission has frequently decided a violation of the rights protected in Article 7(1)(a) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights ( “Every individual shall have the right to have his cause heard. This comprises: (a) the right to an appeal to competent national organs against acts violating his fundamental rights as recognized and guaranteed by conventions, laws, regulations and customs in force”) and, in some cases, Article 12(4) of this treaty (“A non-national legally admitted in a territory of a State Party to the present Charter may only be expelled from it by virtue of a decision taken in accordance with the law.”) (See, for example: African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Communication No. 313/05, 47th Ordinary Session of 12 to 26 May 2010, para. 205; African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Communications 27/89, 46/91, 49/91, 99/93, 20th Ordinary Session, 31 October 1996, para. 34: “By expelling these refugees from Rwanda, without giving them the opportunity to be heard by the national judicial authorities, the Government of Rwanda has violated Article 7(1) of the Charter.” African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Communication No. 71/92, 20th Ordinary Session, 31 October 1996, para. 30: “The Commission has already established that none of the deportees had the opportunity to seize the Zambian courts to challenge their detention or deportation. This constitutes a violation of their rights under Article 7 of the Charter and under Zambian national law”; African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Communication No. 212/98, 25th Ordinary Session, 5 May 1999, para. 61: “The Zambian government by denying Mr. Chinula the opportunity to appeal his deportation order has deprived him of a right to fair hearing which contravenes all Zambian domestic laws and international human rights laws.”). Under the European system for the protection of human rights, Article 1(1) of Protocol No. 7 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms establishes a series of specific procedural safeguards relating to expulsion of aliens lawfully resident in the territory of a State Member. Thus, the alien must be allowed: (a) to submit reasons against his expulsion; (b) to have his case reviewed, and (c) to be represented for these purposes before the competent authority. The European Court of Human Rights, in its consistent case law, has considered that: the right to an effective remedy (Article 13 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms: “Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority 114