372. Contrary to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 430 (hereinafter also “the European Convention”), the American Convention does not establish a limitation to the exercise of the guarantee established in Article 7(5) of the Convention based on the reasons or circumstances for which the person has been arrested or detained. 431 Consequently, “based on the pro persona principle, this guarantee must be observed, whenever anyone is arrested or detained due to his migratory situation, in keeping with the principles of judicial control and procedural immediacy.” 432 This Court has considered that, in order to constitute a mechanism that truly counters illegal or arbitrary detentions, “the judicial review must be conducted promptly and in a way that guarantees compliance with the law and the detainee’s effective enjoyment of his rights, taking into account his particular vulnerability.” 433 In this regard, the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention has stated that “[a]ny […] immigrant placed in custody must be brought promptly before a judicial or other authority.” 434 373. In this regard, article 8.2.d) of the 1994 Constitution, in force at the time of the detentions, established that “[a]nyone deprived of his liberty shall be brought before the competent judicial authority within forty-eight hours of his detention or released.” 374. The deprivations of the liberty of the members of the Jean, Fils-Aimé and Medina families, and of Bersson Gelin and Rafaelito Pérez Charles only lasted a few hours and, therefore, less than the 48 hours established by the Constitution for bringing the detainee before a competent judicial authority. However, the conclusion of the deprivation of liberty of the presumed victims was not brought about by their release in Dominican territory, but occurred at the time that the State agents expelled them from Dominican territory, without these persons being brought before a competent authority who could decide, as appropriate, on the eventual admissibility of their release. Consequently, in this case, Article 7(5) of the Convention was violated to the detriment of the members of the Jean, Fils-Aimé and Medina families, and of Bersson Gelin and Rafaelito Pérez Charles. B.2.1.4. Judicial review of the lawfulness of deprivations of liberty (Article 7(6)) 375. Lastly, Article 7(6) of the Convention protects the right of anyone who is arrested or detained to have recourse to a competent judge or court so that the judge or court may decide without delay on the lawfulness of his arrest or detention and order his release if the arrest or detention is unlawful. 376. In this regard, the Court has indicated that “the authority that must decide on the lawfulness of the arrest or detention must be a judge or court. Thus, the Convention is 430 In the European Convention, the right to be brought promptly before a judge or other officer established in Article 5(3) is related exclusively to the category of detainee mentioned in paragraph 1(c) of this Article; that is, the person who is detained for the purpose of “bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offense or fleeing after having done so.” Cf. Case of Vélez Loor v. Panama, footnote 106. 431 Cf. Case of Vélez Loor v. Panama, para. 107, and Case of Nadege Dorzema et al. v. Dominican Republic, para. 136. 432 136. Cf. Case of Tibi v. Ecuador, para. 118, and Case of Nadege Dorzema et al. v. Dominican Republic, para. 433 Case of Bayarri v. Argentina. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 30, 2008. Series C No. 187, para. 67, and Case of Nadege Dorzema et al. v. Dominican Republic, para. 136. 434 United Nations, Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, Report of the Group, Annex II, Deliberation No. 5: Situation regarding immigrants and asylum-seekers, 1999, E/CN.4/2000/4, Principle 3. Cf. Case of Vélez Loor v. Panama, para. 107. 121