A/HRC/WGAD/2017/81 27. Moreover, since their arrest, Mi Sook Kang and Ho Seok Kim have never been brought before any judicial authority and they have thus been unable to challenge the lawfulness of their continued detention. The right to challenge the lawfulness of detention before a court is a self-standing human right and a judicial remedy that is essential to preserve legality in a democratic society (see A/HRC/30/37, paras. 2–3). The situation of Mi Sook Kang and Ho Seok Kim in this regard also constitutes a violation of articles 10 and 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 28. Furthermore, Mi Sook Kang and Ho Seok Kim have been held in detention for lengthy periods of time: 18 years and 16 years respectively. The Working Group refers to the right to a fair trial, as enshrined in articles 9 and 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in articles 9 and 14 of the Covenant. These articles state that any individual detained for a criminal offence has the right to a fair trial without undue delay. 29. Lastly, the denial of legal assistance constitutes a violation of articles 7 and 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 14 of the Covenant, as well as principle 17 (1) of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment and principle 9 of 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. 30. The Working Group considers that the cumulated violation of these international norms relating to the right to a fair trial is of such gravity as to give the detention of Mi Sook Kang and Ho Seok Kim an arbitrary character, falling within category III. 31. Finally, and as per its well-established practice, the Working Group will refer the situation of Mi Sook Kang and Ho Seok Kim to the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea for appropriate action. Considerations relevant to both States 32. The Working Group wishes to emphasize that the prohibition of arbitrary detention bears an absolute character: it is indeed a peremptory norm of international law. The International Court of Justice has stated that wrongfully to deprive human beings of their freedom is in itself manifestly incompatible with the principles enunciated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 4 It is in that regard that the role of China also gives cause for concern, as Chinese police officials arrested and repatriated Mi Sook Kang and Ho Seok Kim in violation of the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and of its Protocol. It is worth recalling that China is a party to both of those international instruments. 33. The Working Group notes with concern the consistent pattern of systematic deportation by China of nationals of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea arrested at the border, to their country of origin (see CAT/C/CHN/CO/5, para. 46). Disposition 34. In the light of the foregoing, the Working Group renders the following opinion: With regard to China, the deprivation of liberty of Mi Sook Kang and Ho Seok Kim being in contravention of articles 7, 9 and 14 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, is arbitrary and falls within categories I and II. With regard to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, the deprivation of liberty of Mi Sook Kang and Ho Seok Kim being in contravention of articles 7, 9, 10, 11 and 14 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and of articles 9 and 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is arbitrary and falls within categories I and III. 35. The Working Group requests the Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and the Government of China to take the steps necessary to remedy the situation 4 See United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1980, p. 3, at p. 42, para. 91. 5