A/HRC/WGAD/2018/54 Lee (camp No. 15, Yoduk political prison camp) and Ms. Myung-Ju Lee (camp No. 16 in Hwasung). 52. The Working Group expresses its concern about the detention of these four individuals in camps for political prisoners. Moreover, the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea has recently received testimonies pointing to the widespread fear among the population of political prison camps. The apprehension is so fierce that people assume that anyone who disappears must be detained in one of the camps that are said to be currently operational.3 There is, however, insufficient information on the situation of detainees in those prisons, but the Commission of Inquiry on human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, in its 2014 report, estimated their number at between 80,000 and 120,000.4 53. In the present case, the Working Group was convinced by the information from the source, which was not rebutted by the authorities of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, that no legal basis was invoked by the Government to justify the deprivation of liberty of Ms. Kang, Mr. Kim, Ms. Keum Nam Lee and Ms. Myung-Ju Lee. The Working Group therefore concludes that their detention by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is arbitrary in violation of articles 9 and 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and of article 9 of the Covenant, and falls within category I. 54. The Working Group notes that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea has a systematic policy of detaining anyone that leaves the country and considering them as a defector. Also, the Working Group is aware that the National Security Agency of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea manages the cases of repatriated defectors. Defecting from the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is considered to harm the dignity of Kim Il-sung and Kim Jong-il and to violate the Party’s “10 principles for the establishment of the one ideology system”, and leads to detention in political prison camps. In the present case, the Working Group considers that the detention of Ms. Kang, Mr. Kim, Ms. Keum Nam Lee and Ms. Myung-Ju Lee by the authorities of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea results from their exercising their right to leave their own country, which is enshrined in article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as well as in article 12 of the Covenant. Therefore, the Working Group deems the detention of the four individuals as arbitrary in accordance with category II. 55. Furthermore, the Working Group is aware that reading the Bible in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is a violation of the “The 10 principles for the establishment of the one ideology system” and leads to the detention of individuals in camps for political prisoners. In the present case, the Working Group is convinced that the detention of Ms. Myung-Ju Lee was also the result of her exercising the right to freedom of conscience and religion, as she confessed to the authorities of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea that she had read the Bible. For the Working Group, such detention is arbitrary as it violates article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 18 of the Covenant. It therefore falls within category II. 56. In the present case, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea did not provide information to prove that the authorities had respected the right to a fair trial of Ms. Kang, Mr. Kim, Ms. Keum Nam Lee and Ms. Myung-Ju Lee.5 Therefore, the Working Group considers that the non-observance of the international norms relating to the right to a fair trial in these cases is of such gravity as to give the deprivation of liberty an arbitrary character. Thus, the deprivation of liberty of Ms. Kang, Mr. Kim, Ms. Keum Nam Lee and Ms. Myung-Ju Lee falls within category III. 57. The Working Group further considers that, under certain circumstances, widespread or systematic imprisonment or other severe deprivation of liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law may constitute crimes against humanity. The present case makes it necessary to reaffirm this. The duties to comply with international human 3 4 5 See www.ohchr.org/en/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=23352&LangID=E. A/HRC/25/63, para. 61. Opinions No. 32/2015, No. 35/2013 and No. 36/2013. 7