A/73/178/Rev.1 25. The administrative remedies available in some States provide for the review of decisions by superior bodies, usually the Ministry of Justice or a collegiate body composed of representatives of the executive branch. In a few cases, countries are directly supported by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) or academic experts. When administrative decisions are reviewed by authorities attached to the executive branch — especially the Ministry of the Interior, which is directly involved in matters of order and security and, thus, criminalization — this may endanger the human right to an effective remedy in accordance with international human rights standards, 24 as it prevents an impartial analysis of the status of the foreign national. 26. In the European Union, Directive 2008/115/EC on common standards and procedures in member States for returning illegally staying third -country nationals establishes minimum common legal safeguards for decisions pertaining to the return of irregular migrants that are not respected by all member States. It prescribes, inter alia, that decisions on return, entry bans and removal shall be issued in writing and include reasons in fact and in law and information about available legal remedies. Further, while enshrining the effective right to lodge an appeal before a judicial body, an administrative authority or other competent body, it requires that the review body be composed of impartial members whose independence is guaranteed, which is difficult to enforce when a review is purely administrative. 27. This European directive has also been criticized because a postponement of the removal decision is established only as a possibility and not an obligation, which has allowed a person to be removed immediately after being notified of a decision. 25 In the case of Directive 2005/85/EC on minimum standards on procedures in member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status, there is a stricter requirement, because it establishes the obligation to provide for the right to a judicial review of administrative decisions on asylum. 28. The three immigration procedures identified are subject to different rules. There is greater regulation of asylum and removal procedures and less regulation of denial of entry, which is generally a step taken by border immigration authorities that form part of the executive branch. Regulations are often confusing and require the analysis of other normative instruments to determine whether they allow for appeals and under what terms, hindering the proper exercise of rights, which is exacerbated when laws are in a language other than the native language. 29. In countries that do not allow for appeals of administrative decisions before a judicial authority, decisions to deny entry and remove persons are not always contained in an administrative act and are only communicated verbally by the representative of the immigration authority to the foreign national, resulting in a lack of certainty about the reasons for the act and undermining the right to a defence. 30. In some countries that allow for appeals against administrative decisions through the courts, notice of refusal of entry is given verbally and is not subject to any kind of appeal, which is an exception to the general rule of a well-founded administrative act as provided for by the majority of countries, which allows for the proper exercise of the right to a defence. Other countries provide for direct access to __________________ 24 25 8/20 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, art. 2, para. 3 and American Convention on Human Rights, art. 25, para. 1. Similarly, general comment No. 15 (1986) of the Human Rights Committee, on the position of aliens under the covenant, indicates that “an alien must be given full facilities for pursuing his remedy against expulsion so that this right will in all the circumstances of his case be an effective one. The principles of art. 13 relating to appeal against expulsion and the entitlement to review by a competent authority may only be departed from when ‘compelling reasons of national security’ so require” (para. 10). See Court of Justice of the European Communities, Dem‘Yanenko case. 18-15902