A/HRC/WGAD/2017/81
9.
The source explains that attempted defection from the Democratic People’s
Republic of Korea is considered to be an act of treason against the “fatherland”.
10.
The source submits that there is no official mechanism for filing complaints with the
Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea on behalf of victims of arbitrary
detention, as there are no warrants, trials, appeal procedures or legal remedies. Furthermore,
if a family member or a friend of a detainee attempts to search for or to rescue the detainee
using unofficial means, he or she will be convicted of guilt by association. The source
argues that this renders it impossible for family members or friends of detainees to employ
even unofficial means to search for or to assist them.
11.
The source also reports that individuals who are repatriated from China fall under
the custody of the national security agency of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.
Therefore, it was national security agency officials who sent Mi Sook Kang and Ho Seok
Kim to Camp 15 (Yodok Political Prison Camp), located in Yodok, South Hamgyong
Province.
12.
The source specifies that, given that Ho Seok Kim not only fled to China, but also
attempted to defect to the Republic of Korea, he was considered as a political criminal and
detained in a political prison camp.
13.
The source concludes that, given the absence of an arrest warrant, legal procedures
and legal representation, the arrests and detention of Mi Sook Kang and Ho Seok Kim are
arbitrary and illegal.
Responses from the Governments
14.
On 14 September 2017, the Working Group transmitted the allegations made by the
source to the Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and the
Government of China under its regular communications procedure. The Working Group
requested both Governments to provide, by 13 November 2017, detailed information about
the current situation of Mi Sook Kang and Ho Seok Kim and any comments on the source’s
allegations.
15.
The Working Group regrets that it did not receive a response from the Government
of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, nor did the Government request an
extension of the time limit for its reply, as provided for in the Working Group’s methods of
work.
16.
The Government of China responded on 6 November 2017, stating that it did not
have any information concerning Mi Sook Kang and Ho Seok Kim.
Discussion
17.
This case involves two States and the Working Group will discuss the issues related
to each of them separately. However, at the outset, it is worth noting that both Governments
have failed to refute the prima facie credible allegations made by the source, despite the
fact that the burden of proof rests with them to do so, as has been well-established in the
Working Group’s jurisprudence on evidentiary issues. 1
Allegations against China
18.
Both Mi Sook Kang and Ho Seok Kim were arrested in China and then returned to
the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. Although grateful for the timely response
submitted by China, the Working Group regrets that, in its response, China failed to address
the substance of the allegations. The Working Group is therefore left with no other option
than to consider the facts as established by the source. The Working Group is of the view
that arrest without a warrant leads to arbitrary deprivation of liberty within category I.
19.
Following the arrests of Mi Sook Kang and Ho Seok Kim, Chinese officials
proceeded to forcibly repatriate them to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, in
1
See, for example A/HRC/19/57, para. 68.
3