A/HRC/WGAD/2019/69 rules of international law may constitute crimes against humanity, as the Working Group has repeatedly reminded the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. Discussion 44. The Working Group thanks the source and the Government for their submissions. It regrets the repeated unwillingness of the Government to engage with it constructively over the allegations raised.1 The Working Group reiterates that it always seeks the constructive engagement of Governments during its regular communications procedure. However, in those instances when Governments choose not to engage with the Working Group or limit such engagement to a summary dismissal of the allegations raised, the Working Group must limit itself to assessing the credibility and reliability of the source solely on the basis of the information at its disposal. In that regard, the Working Group notes that the source’s account is consistent and presents no contradictions. 45. The Working Group recalls that it considers a detention to be arbitrary and falling under category I if such detention lacks a legal basis. 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 which may authorize the arrest of an individual. The authorities must invoke the legal basis and apply it to the circumstances of the case through an arrest warrant.2 46. The Working Group is convinced that Mr. Hwang Won is a citizen of the Republic of Korea and has been continuously deprived of his personal liberty since 11 December 1969, after the hijacking of Korean Air Lines YS-11. The Working Group is also convinced that Mr. Hwang Won is not in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea of his own free will, despite the general response by the Government. For the Working Group, such a lack of willingness is also evidenced by the fact that on 20 March 1970, during a meeting of the Military Armistice Commission, a proposal to request a third party to verify the true intentions of the 11 individuals in regard to their remaining in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea was refused by the authorities. The Working Group would also like to recall that in the report of the detailed findings of the commission of inquiry on human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, it was noted that the commission did not receive an adequate response from the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea regarding the 1969 hijacking of Korean Air Lines YS-11 (A/HRC/25/CRP.1, paras. 897– 899). 47. From the credible information received, the Working Group is aware that 50 crew members and passengers aboard Korean Air Lines YS-11 were taken into custody by State agents of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and that 39 of them were released, but not Mr. Hwang Won. In that regard, the Working Group has not received any information from the Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea providing evidence that Mr. Hwang Won was informed of the reasons for his arrest or was detained immediately after committing a crime. 48. The Working Group received information from the source, which was not challenged by the Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, that in recent years Mr. Hwang Won has reportedly been confined at home with heavy security and restriction of movement, and is under house arrest. As already stated in its jurisprudence, the Working Group considers that house arrest could be regarded as deprivation of liberty. 3 In its deliberation No. 1, the Working Group also mentions that without prejudging the arbitrary character or otherwise of the measure, house arrest may be compared to deprivation of liberty provided that it is carried out in closed premises that the person is not allowed to leave (E/CN.4/1993/24, para. 20). 49. On the basis of the above, the Working Group is therefore convinced that Mr. Hwang Won was initially deprived of his liberty during the hijacking of Korean Air Lines YS-11, a civilian aeroplane, by a State agent of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, for which there can never be any legal basis or justification. He was afterwards 1 2 3 6 See opinions No. 52/2019, No. 54/2018 and No. 54/2017. See opinions No. 35/2018, No. 75/2017, No. 66/2017 and No. 46/2017. See opinion No. 54/2015, para. 80.