A/HRC/WGAD/2017/80 collection, keeping and distribution of enemy propaganda) of the Criminal Law. It would also be considered to be a violation of the “10 principles” that are the foundation of the State’s ideology because it undermines the leader’s dignity and the superiority of socialism over capitalism. The source adds that, given that Kwang Ho Kim was a public official, his actions were considered to have undermined the dignity of the authorities and the agency for which he worked. 24. Lastly, Seong Min Yoon, the fifth alleged victim, was 40 years of age at the time of his detention. He is a national of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and usually resides in Pyongyang. Prior to his detention, Seong Min Yoon was deputy-director of the Buheung Trade Company, a part of the Second Economic Commission of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. In that capacity, Seong Min Yoon worked in the arms-export sector. 25. The source reports that Seong Min Yoon told a friend that he sold military equipment abroad. National security agency officials established that fact and, in September 2001, Seong Min Yoon was arrested. The source further states that the national security agency officials who arrested Seong Min Yoon did not show any arrest warrant or a copy of any other decision issued by a public authority. 26. The source submits that it can be assumed that Seong Min Yoon’s actions were considered to be a breach of State secrecy, therefore falling under article 63 (Espionage) of the Criminal Law. 27. According to the source, the five individuals were sent to Yodok Political Prison Camp (Camp 15), located in Yodok, South Hamgyong Province, where, according to reports, they remain in detention to date. 28. In each of these cases, the source concludes that, given the absence of an arrest warrant, legal procedures, legal defence and the fact that Il Joo, Cheol Yong Kim, Eun Ho Kim, Kwang Ho Kim and Seong Min Yoon’s families were not informed of their whereabouts when they were taken into custody, their arrests and continued detention are arbitrary and illegal. Response from the Government 29. On 14 September 2017, the Working Group transmitted the allegations made by the source to the Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea under its regular communications procedure. The Working Group requested the Government to provide, by 13 November 2017, detailed information about the current situation of the five individuals concerned and any comments on the source’s allegations. 30. In its response dated 25 September 2017, the Government stated that, from its point of view, the cases of Il Joo, Cheol Yong Kim, Eun Ho Kim, Kwang Ho Kim and Seong Min Yoon were irrelevant. The Government further stated that such communications were part of a “heinous” plot by forces hostile to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, including the Republic of Korea, which used every means available to attack the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea through the human rights “racket”. Consequently, the Government categorically rejected the cases mentioned in the communication as attempts by those hostile forces to link the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to human rights violations on the basis of false information and conjecture. The response of the Government was transmitted to the source for further comments. Discussion 31. The Working Group is grateful to the Government for submitting its response in a timely manner. However, the Working Group considers that the submission of the Government did not address the substance of the serious allegations made against it. The Working Group also notes that the Government did not request an extension in order to provide a substantial rebuttal to the claims. 32. Consequently, the Government has failed to refute the prima facie credible allegations made by the source. According to the jurisprudence of the Working Group 4