A/HRC/WGAD/2017/81 violation of the principle of non-refoulement of aliens who would be at risk if returned to the country from which they had fled. Although customary in nature, this principle is enshrined in article 33 of the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, to which China became a party on 24 September 1982. In 2015, the Committee against Torture reminded China of its obligation in that regard, stating that the practice of forcible repatriation of nationals of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea should immediately cease (see CAT/C/CHN/CO/5, paras. 46 and 47). 20. The Working Group thus considers the arrests and detention of Mi Sook Kang and Ho Seok Kim, who were merely attempting to exercise their right to seek asylum as established in article 14 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to be arbitrary. As a result, their arrests and detention fall within category II. Allegations against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea 21. The Working Group regrets that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea did not respond to the communication. As stated above (para. 17), the State bears the burden of proof with regard to refuting the prima facie credible allegations brought against it: failure to refute such allegations could lead to negative inference. 22. The allegations put forward by the source can be summarized as follows: arrests without warrants, incommunicado detention, detention based on political considerations, including contact with materials produced abroad or foreign nationals, or on vague offences that are general and imprecise; and the complete absence of judicial mechanisms for challenging the legality of detention or for appealing against potentially indefinite detention at a political prison camp. 23. There is a wealth of information concerning the allegations made in the present case. First, the Working Group recalls paragraph 38 of its opinion No. 35/2013, in which it was presented with similar facts and concluded that the detention had been arbitrary. The Working Group also recalls the 2014 report of the commission of inquiry on human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea,2 which pointed to the continued existence of political prison camps, where a considerable number of nationals of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea suspected of committing major political crimes were held in dire circumstances. Lastly, it is worth recalling the concerns of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea in relation to the widespread practices of arbitrary detention and forced disappearances.3 For all those reasons, the Working Group is of the view that the information provided by the source has been corroborated and the credibility of the source has been established. 24. The source has alleged that Mi Sook Kang and Ho Seok Kim have been subjected to an arbitrary detention. 25. Mi Sook Kang is being held as a result of her attempts to seek asylum in China. Similarly, Ho Seok Kim is being detained as a result of his attempt to seek asylum in the Republic of Korea and he was arrested while he was taking refuge at the border between China and Mongolia. The Working Group recalls that the right to seek asylum is a fundamental right protected by article 14 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and cannot be treated as a criminal offence. As a result, article 62 of the Criminal Law, on the grave offence of treason against the “fatherland”, cannot be applied in this situation. 26. The Working Group thus finds that the arrests and subsequent detention of Mi Sook Kang and Ho Seok Kim did not have any legal basis, in violation of articles 7 and 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 9 (1) of Covenant. The Working Group concludes that the arrests of Mi Sook Kang and Ho Seok Kim and their continued detention constitute arbitrary detention, falling within category I. In addition, their arrests and continued detention are also arbitrary, falling within category II, as they are the result of the attempts of these victims to exercise rights provided for in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 2 3 4 See A/HRC/25/63, paras. 59–61. See A/70/362, paras. 8–18.