c) The decisions adopted by the competent organs must be duly and expressly founded;225 d) In order to protect the rights of applicants who may be in danger, all stages of the asylum procedure must respect the protection of the applicant’s personal information and the application, and the principle of confidentiality;226 e) If the applicant is denied refugee status, he should be provided with information on how to file an appeal under the prevailing system and granted a reasonable period for this, so that the decision adopted can be formally adopted, 227 and f) The appeal for review must have suspensive effects and must allow the applicant to remain in the country until the competent authority has adopted the required decision, and even while the decision is being appealed, unless it can be shown that the request is manifestly unfounded.228 160. In addition, regardless of a possible review, in the context of the right to judicial protection recognized in Article 25 of the American Convention, and according to regulations included in the laws of each State, certain judicial actions or remedies may exist, for example, amparo or habeas corpus, that are rapid, adequate and effective to question the possible violation of the rights recognized in Article 22(7) and 22(8) of the Convention, or in the Constitution and laws of each State. Moreover, such remedies may, in certain circumstances, be effective to partially or totally remedy the situation that violates such rights and, perhaps, to allow a reassessment of the administrative procedures, and this will have to be evaluated in each case. B.3. Legal classification of the facts of this case migrant should prevail, in keeping with the pro persona principle.” Expert opinion provided on March 12, 2013, by Pablo Ceriani (evidence file, folios 1275 and 1276). 224 Cf. United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Fair and Efficient Asylum Procedures: A Non-Exhaustive Overview of Applicable International Standards, 2 September 2005, para. 4, and Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status under the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees, reedition, Geneva, December 2011, paras. 196 to 199 and 205.b.i. 225 Cf., mutatis mutandi, Case of Chocrón Chocrón v. Venezuela, para. 118, and Case of López Mendoza v. Venezuela, Para. 141. See also: Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status under the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees, re-edition, Geneva, December 2011, paras. 29, 203 and 204; United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Improving asylum procedures: Comparative Analysis and Recommendations for Law and Practice – main conclusions and recommendations. A UNHCR research project on the application of key provisions of the Asylum Procedures Directive in selected Member States, March 2010, p. 18, para. 30; and United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Fair and Efficient Asylum Procedures: A Non-Exhaustive Overview of Applicable International Standards, 2 September 2005, paras. 8 and 9 226 Cf., UNHCR. Asylum Processes (Fair and efficient asylum procedures). Global consultations on international protection. EC/GC/01/12. 31 May 2001, para. 50.M. See also, Guidelines on international protection No. 5: Application of the Exclusion Clauses: Article 1F of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, para. 5. 227 Cf. Case of Vélez Loor v. Panama, para. 179, and Case of Mohamed v. Argentina. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 23, 2012 Series C No. 255, para. 98. See also: Executive Committee of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Determination of Refugee Status, No. 8 (XXVIII) (1977), para. e.vi: “If the applicant is not recognized, he should be given a reasonable time to appeal for a formal reconsideration of the decision, either to the same or to a different authority, whether administrative or judicial, according to the prevailing system.” Similarly: United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Improving asylum procedures: Comparative Analysis and Recommendations for Law and Practice – main conclusions and recommendations. A UNHCR research project on the application of key provisions of the Asylum Procedures Directive in selected Member States, March 2010, p. 89. 228 Cf. Executive Committee of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Determination of Refugee Status, No. 8 (XXVIII) (1977), para. e.vii. 54