A/HRC/WGAD/2018/54 mentioned principles. Such infringements lead to the detention of defectors in political prison camps. 26. Reportedly, the authorities have informed Ms. Myung-Ju Lee’s family of her detention and requested them to bring her food. However, her family members have not been allowed to visit her. 27. The source indicates that, on 25 May 2005, Ms. Myung-Ju Lee was briefly released before being rearrested one week later, in June 2005. 28. The source reports that, during the investigation process conducted by the National Security Agency, Ms. Myung-Ju Lee was held in solitary confinement in the dark. She was therefore not able to distinguish between night and day. The authorities allegedly seriously abused her during the investigation. Reportedly, officers would beat Ms. Myung-Ju Lee and force her to periodically sit and stand up. Whenever she had to answer questions, Ms. Myung-Ju Lee was forced to kneel. The source attests that, when Ms. Myung-Ju Lee was temporarily released from detention, she was only able to crawl. The source also points to evidence that Ms. Myung-Ju Lee was severely abused and has suffered sustained injuries as a result. Furthermore, the source alleges that, during the investigation process, officers from the National Security Agency made sure that Ms. Lee did not miss meals and abused her if she did not eat –— the reason for this being that, had Ms. Lee died during the investigation process, the officer in charge would have been punished. 29. In September 2015, Ms. Myung-Ju Lee was sent to political prison camp No. 16 in Hwasung, where she remained at the time of submission of the communication. The source adds that Ms. Lee was sent to a political prison camp rather than to an ordinary prison because she confessed to the authorities that she had read the Bible, which is strictly forbidden in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. 30. The source notes that, while it is not known whether the police presented an arrest warrant or other decision by a public authority at the time of the arrest in the present case, according to numerous witness accounts, such a practice does not exist in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. 31. In all four cases, the source notes that the agreements and protocols that may have been used by the Chinese security police as the basis for detaining the above-mentioned citizens of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and then repatriating them include: the Mutual Cooperation Agreement for the Extradition of Defectors and Criminals (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea — People’s Republic of China Agreement on Repatriation of Illegal Entrants) (1966); the Mutual Cooperation Protocol for the Work of Maintaining National Security and Social Order and the Border Areas (1986); the Bilateral Agreement on Mutual Cooperation for the Maintenance of State Safety and Social Order (1998); and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea — People’s Republic of China Civil and Criminal Law Cooperation Treaty (2003). 32. In addition, the source states that the authorities of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea may have invoked article 62 of its Criminal Law (“Treason against the Fatherland”), which stipulates that: “A citizen of the Republic who commits treason against the Fatherland by defection, surrender, betrayal, or disclosure of secrets shall be punished by reform through labour for more than five years. In cases where the person commits a grave offence, he or she shall be punished by reform through labour for more than five years and less than ten years.” Furthermore, the source states that authorities would have referred to “The 10 principles for the establishment of the one ideology system”. 33. The source notes that there is no official mechanism to file a complaint with the Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea on behalf of victims of arbitrary detention because there are no warrants, trials, appeal processes or legal procedures to seek relief. Furthermore, it is alleged that, if a family member or a friend of an arbitrarily held detainee attempts to search for or rescue the detainee through unofficial means, he or she would immediately be arrested and convicted of guilt by association. The source argues that this makes it impossible for family members or friends of arbitrarily held detainees to employ even unofficial means to search for them. 4