and given that, in a democratic society, punitive power is only exercised as strictly necessary to protect the fundamental rights from the most serious attacks that harm or endanger them, 154 the detention of an individual for failing to comply with the immigration laws should never be for punitive purposes.155 Consequently, immigration policies based on the obligatory detention of irregular migrants, without the competent authorities verifying in each specific case, by an individualized evaluation, the possibility of using less restrictive measures that may be effective to achieve these purposes, will be arbitrary.156 132. For the above reasons, in certain cases in which the migratory authorities take decisions that affect fundamental rights, such as personal liberty, in proceedings such as those that may result in the expulsion or deportation of aliens, the State cannot decide punitive administrative or judicial decisions without respecting certain minimum guarantees, the content of which is substantially the same as those established in paragraph 2 of Article 8 of the Convention, and so they are applicable as appropriate. The international organs for the protection of human rights are in agreement in this regard.157 133. In sum, a proceeding that may lead to the expulsion or deportation of an alien must be of an individual nature, in order to allow the personal circumstances of each person to be assessed, and there must be no discrimination based on nationality, color, race, sex, language, religion, political opinions, social status or other condition, and the following minimum guarantees must be observed:158 i) To be informed, expressly and formally, of the charges against him, if applicable, and the reasons for the expulsion or deportation. This notification must include information on his rights, such as: a. The possibility of presenting the reasons why he should not be deported and defending himself from any charges against him; 154 Cf. Case of Kimel v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 2, 2008. Series C No. 177, para. 76, and Case of Tristán Donoso v. Panama. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 27, 2009 Series C No. 193, para. 119.” 155 Cf. Case of Vélez Loor v. Panama, para. 171. Also, in keeping with the opinion of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, the Court established that “criminalizing illegal entry into a country exceeds the legitimate interest of States to control and regulate illegal immigration and leads to unnecessary detention.” General Assembly of the United Nations, “Promotion and protection of all human rights, civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to development,” Report of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, A/HRC/7/4, 10 January 2008, para. 53. 156 Cf. Case of Vélez Loor v. Panama, para. 171. 157 The International Law Commission (ILC) has stated that an alien subject to expulsion proceedings must enjoy the following procedural rights: (i) minimum detention conditions during the proceedings; (ii) the right to challenge the expulsion decision; (iii) consular assistance; (iv) the right to be represented before the competent authority; (v) the right to have the free assistance of an interpreter, and (vi) the right to receive notice of the expulsion decision and to challenge it. Cf. International Law Commission. Expulsion of aliens. Texts of draft articles 1-32 provisionally adopted on first reading by the Drafting Committee at the sixty-fourth session of the International Law Commission UN Doc. A/CN.4/L.797, 24 May 2012, Articles 19 and 26. 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 [the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights] and international law.” Cf. African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Communication No. 159/96, 22nd ordinary session of 11 November 1997, para. 20. The African Commission has also maintained consistently that the guarantees of due process must be applied in the context of proceedings on the expulsion of migrants and refugees (Cf., inter alia, African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights: Communication 313/05 – Kenneth Good v. Botswana, 47th ordinary session, 12 to 26 May 2010, paras. 160-180; and Communications 27/89, 46/91, 49/91, 99/93 - Organisation Mondiale contre la Torture and Association Internationale des Juristes Democrates), Commission Internationale des Juristes (C.I.J), Union Interafricaine des Droits de l'Homme v. Rwanda, 20th ordinary session, October 1996, p. 4). See also, Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 15, The position of aliens under the Covenant (twenty-seventh session, 1986), para. 9. 158 Cf. Case of Nadege Dorzema et al. v. Dominican Republic, paras. 161 and 175 43