26 120. With respect to the right of appeal, the Court has held that it applies to “punitive” 106 decisions. It has also referred to the importance of the notification of the decision for exercising this right. In the case of Velez Loor v. Panama, the Inter-American Court found that “the lack of notification constitutes, per se, a violation of Article 8 of the Convention, given that it placed Mr. Vélez Loor in a situation of uncertainty regarding his legal situation and made the exercise of the right to appeal a 107 judgment unfeasible.” 2. General considerations on the right to seek and be granted asylum and the principle of non-return 121. As noted above, in the instant case, in view of the fact that while the Bolivian immigration authorities were proceeding with the administrative steps for their expulsion the Pacheco Tineo family submitted a claim for recognition of refugee status, the Commission finds it necessary to include the rights enshrined in articles 22(7) and 22(8) of the Convention in its analysis. 2.1 The right to seek and be granted asylum (Article 22(7) of the American Convention) 122. With respect to the right to seek and be granted asylum, recognized at article 22(7) of the American Convention, the Commission has found that this provision “outlines two criteria which are cumulative and both of which must be satisfied in order for the right to exist. The first criterion is that the right to seek and receive asylum on foreign territory must be in ‘accordance with the laws of each country,’ that is the country in which asylum is sought. The second criterion is that the right to seek asylum in foreign territory 108 must be ‘in accordance with international agreements.’” Recently, in the Case of John Doe v. Canada, the Inter-American Commission explained the scope of these two criteria, saying, “Article XXVII [of the American Declaration] would be meaningless under such an interpretation because Member States could exclude broad classes of refugee claimants through domestic law without implementing their obligations 109 under Article XXVII and international refugee law.” 123. It is article 22(7) of the Convention that brought forth the international conventions. As the Inter-American Commission has stated on a number of occasions, the primary instruments governing the status and protection of asylum seekers and others who have crossed borders and are unable or unwilling to return to their countries of origin for fear of persecution are the 1951 Convention relating to 110 the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol. In this regard, it is important to recall that, as was confirmed in the section “Established Facts,” Bolivia is a party to these instruments, both of which have been included in its domestic law on protection of refugees. 106 I/A Court H.R., Case of Vélez Loor v. Panama. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs Judgment of November 23, 2010. Series C, No. 218. par. 179. 107 I/A Court H.R., Case of Vélez Loor v. Panama. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs Judgment of November 23, 2010. Series C, No. 218. par. 180. 108 IACHR, Report No. 51/96. Decision of the Commission As to the Merits of Case 10.675. Interdiction of Haitian Boat People. United States. March 13, 1997. par. 151. Although the Commission reached a decision in this case on the scope of the right to receive and be granted asylum under the American Declaration, this interpretation is applicable to article 22(7) of the Convention since the relevant language is substantially similar. On this similarity, see paragraph 154 of the same report. In paragraph 152 of this report, the Commission offers the following analysis of the travaux préparatoires on the provision: “The travaux préparatoires show that the first draft in the Article did not have the phrase ‘in accordance with the laws of each country.’ That phrase was added in the Sixth Session of the Sixth Commission's of the Inter-American Juridical Committee at the Ninth International Conference of American States in Bogota in 1948, and discussed in the Seventh session of the Sixth Commission, to preserve the states sovereignty in questions of asylum.” 109 110 IACHR, Report No. 24.11. Case 12.586. Merits. John Doe et al. Canada. par. 92. IACHR, Report on the Situation of Human Rights of Asylum Seekers within the Canadian Refugee Determination System. OEA/Ser.L/V/II.106. Doc. 40. Rev. 1. February 28, 2000. par. 21; and IACHR, Report No. 51/96. Decision of the Commission As to the Merits of Case 10.675. Interdiction of Haitian Boat People. United States. March 13, 1997. par. 155.