A/HRC/WGAD/2018/54 Response from the Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea 34. On 25 January 2018, the Working Group transmitted the allegations from the source to the Governments of China and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea under its regular communication procedure. The Working Group requested both Governments to provide, by 26 March 2018, detailed information about the current situation of Ms. Kang, Mr. Kim, Ms. Keum Nam Lee and Ms. Myung-Ju Lee. The Working Group also requested the Governments to clarify the legal provisions justifying their detentions, and the compatibility of their detention with the States’ obligations under international human rights law. The Working Group called upon the Governments to ensure the physical and mental integrity of the above-mentioned individuals. 35. The Working Group regrets that it did not receive a response from the Government of China, 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. 36. On 13 February 2018, the Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea submitted its response. In the response, the Government concludes that the cases of Ms. Kang, Mr. Kim, Ms. Keum Nam Lee and Ms. Myung-Ju Lee have no relevance for the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. 37. The Government reiterates that such communications represent part of a stereotypical political plot against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea by hostile forces, which resort to “human rights” rhetoric against the country. Therefore, the Government once again categorically rejects the above-mentioned cases as being part of a plot against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea launched for political purposes under the guise of upholding human rights. Further information from the source 38. On 14 February 2018, the response from the Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea was transmitted to the source for possible further comment. The source did not provide an additional response. Discussion 39. The Working Group thanks the source and the Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea for their submissions. 40. Notwithstanding the absence of a response by the Government of China, the Working Group has decided to render the present opinion, in conformity with paragraph 15 of its methods of work. 41. The Working Group has in its jurisprudence established the ways in which it deals with evidentiary issues. If the source has established a prima facie case for breach of international requirements constituting arbitrary detention, the burden of proof should be understood to rest upon the Government if it wishes to refute the allegations (A/HRC/19/57, para. 68). 42. In the present case, the Government of the People’s Republic of China has chosen not to challenge the prima facie credible allegations made by the source. The Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea in its response has made general allegations questioning the intentions of the source but has not provided any relevant information on the factual and legal aspects surrounding the detention of four of its nationals who were repatriated from China, and whether those detentions were made in compliance with applicable international norms. In the absence of a rebuttal from the respondent States, the Working Group must limit itself to assessing the credibility and reliability of the source solely on the basis of the information at its disposal. In this regard, the Working Group notes that the source’s account is consistent and presents no contradictions. 43. The Working Group recalls that the prohibition of arbitrary detention is absolute, meaning that it is a non-derogable norm of customary international law or jus cogens. Arbitrary detention can never be justified, including for any reason related to national emergency, maintaining public security or the large movements of immigrants or asylum 5