A/HRC/WGAD/2019/57 as are established by law. Moreover, article 9 (2) provides that anyone who is arrested shall be informed, at the time of arrest, of the reasons for his or her arrest. In the present case, Mr. Lee was arrested without a warrant, in violation of article 9 (1) of the Covenant. As the Working Group has stated, in order for a deprivation of liberty to have a legal basis, it is not sufficient for there to be a law authorizing the arrest. The authorities must invoke that legal basis and apply it to the circumstances of the case through an arrest warrant. 4 Furthermore, Mr. Lee was not informed of the reasons for his arrest, in violation of article 9 (2) of the Covenant. 24. In addition, it appears from the information submitted by the source that Mr. Lee has been held incommunicado at Yodok prison camp since September 2009. There has been no official communication from the Government to Mr. Lee’s family or his representatives about his situation, and it was only revealed that Mr. Lee had been transferred to Yodok prison camp when military officers from the Security Bureau visited his house in September 2009. The source reports that his status is “highly confidential”. These factors suggest that Mr. Lee has had no contact with the outside world, particularly his family and lawyers. The Government has not provided any alternative explanation. 25. As the Working Group has consistently argued, holding persons incommunicado violates their right to challenge the lawfulness of detention before a court under article 9 (4) of the Covenant.5 In the present case, the situation is made worse by the fact that there appears to be no means of challenging the legality of detention in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. The Working Group considers that judicial oversight of the deprivation of liberty is a fundamental safeguard of personal liberty6 and is essential in ensuring that detention has a legal basis. Given that there is no indication that Mr. Lee was able to challenge his detention, his right to an effective remedy under article 8 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 2 (3) of the Covenant was violated. Moreover, being held in incommunicado detention placed Mr. Lee outside the protection of the law, in violation of his right to be recognized as a person before the law under article 6 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 16 of the Covenant. 26. According to the source, Mr. Lee was sent to Yodok prison camp in September 2009, but there is no information as to whether any charges were brought against him, whether there were any trial proceedings (the source reports that he had a “confidential trial”), whether he has been convicted of any offence and if so, the sentence imposed, or indeed whether he is still alive. In summary, there is no information that would legitimize Mr. Lee’s deprivation of liberty for nearly 11 years, in denial of his rights under articles 9 and 14 of the Covenant. 27. The Working Group concludes that the Government did not take the necessary steps to establish a legal basis for Mr. Lee’s arrest, and has not disclosed to the Working Group any information regarding the legal framework justifying his detention at Yodok prison camp. As a result, Mr. Lee’s deprivation of liberty is arbitrary under category I. 28. The Working Group is extremely concerned that the Government has provided no information about Mr. Lee, particularly as to his location and current status. The Working Group has decided to refer the present case to the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances. The Working Group will also refer the present case to the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. 29. The Working Group considers that, under certain circumstances, widespread or systematic imprisonment or other severe deprivation of liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law may constitute crimes against humanity. The present case makes it necessary to reaffirm this. The duty to comply with international human rights that are 4 5 6 See, for example, opinions No. 52/2019, No. 9/2019 and No. 46/2018. See, for example, opinions No. 52/2019, No. 79/2017 and No. 45/2017. See the United Nations Basic Principles and Guidelines on Remedies and Procedures on the Right of Anyone Deprived of Their Liberty to Bring Proceedings Before a Court (A/HRC/30/37, annex), principle 3. 5