A/HRC/WGAD/2019/57 11. Furthermore, the source reports that when someone is sent to a prison camp, no official notification procedure exists. As a result, the unofficial route for seeking information about a detainee’s location is through an agent of the State Security Department who will trade basic information about a detainee in return for an expensive meal and beverage. However, after providing information about a detainee, such agents often warn the family that if they attempt to find out more, they will be prosecuted. The source argues that this has rendered it impossible to protect Mr. Lee or to make enquiries about his detention. 12. The source notes that the lack of due process when someone is detained in a prison camp means that there are no terms of imprisonment and no possibility of an appeal, and detainees are therefore held indefinitely. It is now nearly 11 years since Mr. Lee was arrested in January 2009, when he was 29 years of age. Response from the Government 13. On 21 May 2019, the Working Group transmitted the allegations from the source to the Government under its regular communication procedure. The Working Group requested the Government to provide detailed information by 22 July 2019 about the current situation of Mr. Lee. The Working Group also requested the Government to clarify the legal provisions justifying his continued detention, and its compatibility with the obligations of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea under international human rights law. Moreover, the Working Group called upon the Government to ensure Mr. Lee’s physical and mental integrity. 14. On 7 June 2019, the Government submitted its response. The Government states that, after having reviewed the communication regarding Mr. Lee, it has concluded that the case has no relevance to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. In addition, the Government states that, as in previous cases, 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 present case as part of a plot against the country for political purposes under the guise of upholding human rights. The Government recommended that the Working Group see through the ulterior motive behind such communications and take a fair and critical attitude towards the ill-minded attempts by hostile forces to recklessly link any issues with the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea on the basis of false information and conjecture. The response from the Government was transmitted to the source for further comment. Discussion 15. The Working Group thanks the source and the Government for their submissions. 16. In determining whether the deprivation of liberty of Mr. Lee is arbitrary, the Working Group has regard to the principles established in its jurisprudence to deal with evidentiary issues. If the source has presented a prima facie case of breach of the 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). In the present case, the Government has chosen not to present any arguments directly addressing the source’s allegations. 17. The Working Group regrets the repeated unwillingness of the Government to engage constructively with it and to provide a substantive response to the Working Group’s communications under its regular procedure.1 The Working Group makes every attempt to seek information from governments in relation to each individual case. However, when governments do not respond or limit their response to a summary dismissal of the allegations raised, the Working Group has no choice but to examine the source’s 1 See, for example, opinions No. 52/2019, para. 16; No. 54/2018, para. 37; No. 80/2017, para. 30; No. 29/2015, para. 19; No. 36/2013, para. 20; No. 35/2013, para. 21; No. 34/2013, para. 19; and No. 47/2012, para. 10. 3