relation to the guarantees established in Articles 8 and 25 of this instrument, as appropriate to the administrative or judicial nature of the relevant proceeding in each case. 156. The 1951 Convention does not refer explicitly to the procedure to be followed to determine refugee status, or the procedural guarantees. The UNHCR Executive Committee has indicated “the importance of establishing and ensuring access consistent with the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol for all asylum-seekers to fair and efficient procedures for the determination of refugee status in order to ensure that refugees and other persons eligible for protection under international or national law are identified and granted protection.”193 The same standard was followed by the States parties to the 1951 Convention in their Declaration of December 2001.194 In different resolutions, the General Assembly of the United Nations has considered that applicants for asylum have the right to fair proceedings. 195 Meanwhile, the European Court of Human Rights, in the case of Gebremedhin v. France defined the right to asylum as a fundamental freedom, the corollary of which is precisely a person’s right to request refugee status,196 which involves the right of applicants to be ensured a proper evaluation by the domestic authorities of their applications, and of the danger they could face in case of return to their country of origin.197 157. Hence, owing to the nature of the rights that could be affected by an erroneous determination of the danger or an unfavorable answer, the guarantees of due process are applicable, as appropriate, to this type of proceeding, which is usually of an administrative character. Thus, any proceeding relating to the determination of the refugee status of a person entails an assessment and decision on the possible risk of affecting his most basic rights, such as life, and personal integrity and liberty. In this way, even if States may determine the proceedings and authorities to implement that right, in application of the principles of nondiscrimination and due process they must ensure predictable proceedings, as well as coherence and objectivity in decision-making at each stage of the proceedings to avoid arbitrary decisions. 158. Indeed, several Member States of the Organization of American States have incorporated into their domestic law standards on refugees that are recognized in the 1951 Convention and its 1967 Protocol, even based on guidelines established by UNHCR. Thus, the domestic laws of 193 Cf. Executive Committee of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Conclusions adopted by the Executive Committee for the international protection of refugees. No. 71 (XLIV) (1993), para. i. 194 Cf. Declaration of the States parties to the 1951 Convention and/or the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees, adopted on 13 December 2001 in Geneva at the Ministerial Meeting of the States parties to the 1951 Convention and/or the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees, operative paragraph 6. 195 Cf. United Nations, General Assembly resolution 52/132 Human rights and mass exoduses, 27 February 1998, A/RES/52/132; United Nations, General Assembly resolution 49/169 Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, 24 February 1995, A/RES/49/169; United Nations, General Assembly resolution 45/140 Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees 14 December 1990. The Committee against Torture has indicated the importance of “regulat[ing] procedures for dealing with and deciding on applications for asylum and refugee status, which envisage the opportunity for the applicant to attend a formal hearing and to make such submissions as may be relevant to the right which he invokes, including pertinent evidence, with protection of the characteristics of due process of law.” Concluding observations of the Committee against Torture: Venezuela, 05/05/1999. A/54/44, (Concluding Observations), para. 147. 196 Cf. E.C.H.R., Case of Gebremedhin v. France (No. 25389/05), Judgment of 26 April 2007. Section II, para. 65. 197 “In the Court’s opinion, given the irreversible nature of the harm that might occur if the risk of torture or illtreatment alleged materialised and the importance which it attaches to Article 3 [of the European Convention], the notion of an effective remedy under Article 13 requires independent and rigorous scrutiny of a claim that there exist substantial grounds for fearing a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 and the possibility of suspending the implementation of the measure impugned. Cf. E.C.H.R., Case of Jabari v. Turkey (No. 40035/98), Judgment of 11 July 2000. Final, 10 November 2000, paras 50. The Commissioner for Human Rights of the European Council has indicated: “States should ensure that all foreign nationals seeking asylum in their countries are in fact able to access asylum procedures and benefit from a thorough, fair, individual examination of their claim.” Position Paper from the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights. Positions on the right to seek and enjoy asylum. Strasbourg, 24 June 2010. Available at https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1640757. 50