A/HRC/WGAD/2019/69 26. The source recalls the Working Group’s jurisprudence stipulating that respect for the territorial sovereignty of States is a basic principle of international law and international relations which, in addition to prohibiting the use of force and intervention by one State in the affairs of another, includes refraining from committing acts of sovereignty in the territory of another State, particularly acts of coercion or judicial investigation. 27. The source further argues that there can be no normative excuses for the hijacking of a civilian airliner at home or abroad. 28. The source notes the international obligations of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea as a State party to the Convention on Offences and Certain Other Acts Committed on Board Aircraft, the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft, the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation and the International Convention against the Taking of Hostages. 29. The source concludes that Mr. Hwang Won’s continued deprivation of liberty constitutes a manifest violation of the letter and spirit of those international treaties, which do not require domestic implementing legislation, and his detention must accordingly be considered as lacking any legal basis. The failure of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to investigate the hijacking incident and punish the perpetrators further constitutes a violation of its obligation to respect, protect and fulfil the right to liberty and security of person. 30. In relation to category II, the source submits that Mr. Hwang Won’s continued deprivation of liberty was partly the result of his exercise of the right to freedom of movement, freedom of thought and freedom of expression, guaranteed by articles 13, 18 and 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 12, 18 and 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. 31. The source specifies that according to the testimonies by the returnees, during the 66-day period between the hijacking of Korean Air Lines YS-11 on 11 December 1969 and the partial return of 39 crew members and passengers on 14 February 1970, Mr. Hwang Won exercised his right to freedom of thought and freedom of expression by openly expressing his personal conviction against communist ideology. The source therefore considers it probable that Mr. Hwang Won’s exercise of his universal human rights may have contributed to the decision by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to hold him indefinitely in retaliation. 32. The source also notes that Mr. Hwang Won was taken away by soldiers on lunar New Year’s Day for singing a South Korean song, “I want to go [home]”, which clearly expressed his desire to leave the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and return to the Republic of Korea, along with other individuals. In the opinion of the source, the authorities of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea responded to his expression and exercise of the right to freedom of movement by holding him indefinitely. 33. Lastly, in relation to category V, the source submits that Mr. Hwang Won’s abduction and continued deprivation of liberty resulted from his status as a citizen of the Republic of Korea. The source points to the pattern of abducting and detaining foreign nationals over the past few decades by the authorities of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. The source argues that the abduction of 50 South Korean nationals, including Mr. Hwang Won, fits that historical pattern. 34. In addition, the source submits that the authorities of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea failed to release and return Mr. Hwang Won and 10 other nationals of the Republic of Korea and never provided a satisfactory explanation for their actions, other than claiming that the 11 individuals chose to stay in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, while categorically rejecting the demand for an individualized assessment of their free will by a third party. The source believes that Mr. Hwang Won’s continued deprivation of liberty may have been due to his views and opinions, as expressed in his criticism of ideological indoctrination, and demands that he and the other individuals be returned to the Republic of Korea. Response from the Government 35. On 17 July 2019, the Working Group transmitted the allegations from the source to the Government under its regular communications procedure. It requested the Government 4