A/HRC/WGAD/2019/52 21. The Working Group recalls that it considers a detention to be arbitrary and falling within category I if such detention lacks a legal basis. In this regard, as the Working Group has previously stated, in order for a deprivation of liberty to have a legal basis, it is not sufficient that there is a law that may authorize the arrest of an individual. The authorities must invoke that legal basis and apply it to the circumstances of the case through an arrest warrant.2 22. In the present case, Ms. Kang was arrested twice, in April 2012 and May 2014. On both of those occasions, no arrest warrant was presented nor was she informed of the reasons for those arrests. This means that the authorities of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea failed to duly invoke the legal basis for the arrest of Ms. Kang on both of those occasions in violation of article 9 (1) of the Covenant. Moreover, as prescribed by article 9 (2) of the Covenant, Ms. Kang was entitled to have the reasons for her arrest explained to her. The Working Group notes that, on both occasions, the authorities violated this provision. 23. Furthermore, as the Working Group has consistently argued, holding persons incommunicado violates their right to challenge the lawfulness of detention before a court under article 9 (4) of the Covenant.3 The Working Group considers that judicial oversight of detention is a fundamental safeguard of personal liberty4 and is essential in ensuring that detention has a legal basis. The Working Group considers that the detention of Ms. Kang for six months following her arrest in April 2012 amounted to incommunicado detention as she was denied any contact with the outside world. This violated her right to an effective remedy under article 8 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 2 (3) of the Covenant. 24. Thereafter, following her arrest in April 2014, it appears that Ms. Kang was sent to a prison camp, although no charges had been brought against her, there was no indictment, no trial and no sentence pronounced that would legitimize her deprivation of liberty for over five years now. This is a blatant and absolute denial of her rights under articles 9, 14 and 16 of the Covenant. 25. The Working Group therefore concludes that the arrest and detention of Ms. Kang in April 2012, as well as her arrest and detention since May 2014, are arbitrary as they lack a legal basis and thus fall within category I. 26. The Working Group is extremely concerned that there has been no information about the place of detention of Ms. Kang or indeed about her well-being. In the light of this and in accordance with paragraph 33 (a) of its methods of work, the Working Group refers the present case to the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances and the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, for appropriate action. Disposition 27. In the light of the foregoing, the Working Group renders the following opinion: The deprivation of liberty of Eun Sil Kang, being in contravention of articles 3, 6, 8, 9 and 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 2 (3), 9, 14 and 16 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is arbitrary and falls within category I. 28. The Working Group requests the Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to take the steps necessary to remedy the situation of Ms. Kang without delay and bring it into conformity with the relevant international norms, including those set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. 2 3 4 4 See opinions No. 35/2018, No. 75/2017, No. 66/2017 and No. 46/2017. See opinions No. 79/2017 and No. 28/2016. See 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.