A/HRC/WGAD/2017/80 relating to evidentiary issues,1 it is for the Government to provide the necessary proof in that regard. 33. The allegations in this case can be summarized as follows: arrests without warrants; incommunicado detention; detention based on political considerations, including contact with materials produced abroad or foreign nationals, or on vague offences that are general and imprecise; and the complete absence of judicial mechanisms for challenging the legality of detention or for appealing against potentially indefinite detention at a political prison camp. Although the cases are materially different, the Working Group notes that the five petitioners are being held in the same camp for similar offences. 34. There is a wealth of information concerning the allegations made by the source. First, the Working Group recalls its opinion No. 35/2013,2 in which it was presented with similar facts and concluded that the detention in question was arbitrary. The Working Group also recalls the 2014 report of the commission of inquiry on human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, 3 which pointed to the continued existence of political prison camps where a considerable number of nationals of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea suspected of committing major political crimes were held in dire circumstances. 35. Finally, it is worth recalling the concerns of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea in relation to the widespread practices of arbitrary detention and enforced disappearances. 4 For all those reasons, the Working Group is of the view that the information from the source has been corroborated and the credibility of the source has been established. 36. The source has alleged that the five individuals concerned have been subjected to arbitrary detention. 37. Il Joo appears to have been detained for having received financial support from his sister, who is a citizen of the Republic of Korea. This situation constitutes detention as a result of the enjoyment of the right to family life, outlined in article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In addition, he is being held because of his status as the sibling of an alleged criminal, his sister, despite the longstanding and widely accepted legal principle that one cannot be charged or convicted for a crime committed by another person. 38. Cheol Yong Kim is being detained for having allegedly read materials prohibited by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and for having potentially interacted with a national of the Republic of Korea. Both those acts are protected by the freedoms of opinion and expression, as provided for in article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 19 of the Covenant, and cannot lawfully be criminalized. 39. Eun Ho Kim is being held at Yodok Political Prison Camp simply for having expressed a disparaging opinion regarding the food rationing system established by his Government. Again, this conduct constitutes the clear and reasonable exercise of the freedoms of opinion and expression and cannot be criminalized without violating the international norms protecting those freedoms. 40. Similarly, Kwang Ho Kim is being detained for having watched a television programme produced in the Republic of Korea. This act constitutes enjoyment of the freedom to access information and its criminalization in this case violates the legal norm protecting that freedom. 41. Seong Min Yoon is being detained for having revealed that he worked for the Government in the arms-export sector. Such a statement does not contain any information that could be objectively considered as sensitive for reasons of national security. Furthermore, the Working Group has not received any evidence that such a statement 1 2 3 4 See, for example, A/HRC/19/57, para. 68. See para. 38. See A/HRC/25/63, paras. 59–61. See A/70/362, paras. 8–18. 5