A/HRC/WGAD/2017/80 13. The source reports that, while studying in China, Cheol Yong Kim read a magazine from the Republic of Korea. Officials from the national security agency established that fact and, in November 2000, arrested Cheol Yong Kim in Ryanggang Province. The source further states that the national security agency officials who arrested Cheol Yong Kim did not show an arrest warrant or a copy of any other decision issued by a public authority. 14. The source asserts that, in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, materials produced in the Republic of Korea, such as television and radio programmes, books and magazines, are considered to be enemy propaganda and anyone who watches, listens to or reads such materials is regarded as a political criminal. Cheol Yong Kim was suspected not only of reading a magazine from the Republic of Korea, but also of meeting with a national of the Republic of Korea when he was in China, an act considered to constitute a crime of espionage in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. 15. In this case, it is assumed that the following laws would be applied to Cheol Yong Kim: article 63 (Espionage) and article 195 (Listening to hostile broadcasting and collection, keeping and distribution of enemy propaganda) of the Criminal Law. Article 195 states that any person who, without anti-state motives, listens to a broadcast that is hostile to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, or collects, keeps or distributes enemy propaganda, is to be sentenced to up to two years’ reform through labour. In cases where the person has committed a grave offence, he or she is to be sentenced to up to five years’ reform through labour. Moreover, Cheol Yong Kim’s conduct would be considered to be a violation of the “10 principles” that are the foundation of the State’s ideology and that take precedence over the Criminal Law and the Constitution. 16. Eun Ho Kim, the third alleged victim of arbitrary detention, was 52 years of age at the time of his detention, is a national of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and usually resides in South Pyongnam Province. Prior to his detention, Eun Ho Kim was the head of a section of the Ministry of Foreign Trade. 17. The source reports that Eun Ho Kim had a private conversation about the disadvantages of the food-rationing system that was subsequently reported to the national security agency. 18. The source reports that, in March 2000, Eun Ho Kim was arrested by officials of the national security agency. The source further reports that the arresting officials did not show an arrest warrant or a copy of any other decision issued by a public authority. 19. The source submits that, in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Eun Ho Kim’s acts constitute anti-State propaganda and agitation disdainful of the leader or critical of the regime. It is therefore possible that article 61 (Anti-State propaganda and agitation) of the Criminal Law was applied. This provision states that any person who, with a view to harming the State, disseminates propaganda and engages in agitation, is to be sentenced to up to five years’ reform through labour. In cases where the person commits a grave offence, he or she is to be sentenced to 5 to 10 years’ reform through labour. Moreover, the act of criticizing or complaining about the nation, the leader or the Workers’ Party of Korea constitutes a violation of the “10 principles” that are the foundation of the State’s ideology. 20. The fourth alleged victim is Kwang Ho Kim. He was 44 years of age at the time of his detention, is a national of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and usually resides in South Hamgyong Province. Prior to his detention, Kwang Ho Kim worked as an agent in two departments of the People’s Safety Agency (formerly known as the Social Safety Agency). 21. The source reports that Kwang Ho Kim watched a video from the Republic of Korea and his wife reported that fact to the national security agency. 22. The source also reports that, in November 1999, Kwang Ho Kim was arrested in Hamheung, South Hamgyong Province. The source states that the officials from the national security agency who arrested Kwang Ho Kim did not show any arrest warrant or a copy of any other decision issued by a public authority. 23. The source submits that it can be assumed that Kwang Ho Kim’s act was regarded as contrary to articles 63 (Espionage) and 195 (Listening to hostile broadcasting and 3