A/HRC/WGAD/2013/35 Republic of Korea: the Mutual Cooperation Agreement for the Extradition of Defectors and Criminals (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea–People’s Republic of China Agreement on Repatriation of Illegal Entrants) (1966); the Mutual Cooperation Protocol for the Work of Maintaining National Security and Social Order in the Border Areas (1986); the Bilateral Agreement on Mutual Cooperation for the Maintenance of State Safety and Social Order (July 1998); and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea–People’s Republic of China Civil and Criminal Law Cooperation Treaty (2003). 17. Upon arrest, Kim Mi Rae was repatriated and transferred to the Onsung County NSA detention facility in North Hamkyung for interrogation. She was later transferred to the Chongjin NSA detention facility and, in January 2013, was imprisoned in No. 16 political prison camp. On 4 February 2013, Kim Mi Rae’s mother was informed by relatives with connections to an NSA agent about the details of her daughter’s detention. 18. The source argues that Kim Mi Rae’s family is being detained in accordance with article 62(3) of the Criminal Code and the Ten Principles for the Establishment of the OneIdeology System. Article 62(3) states: “A citizen of the Republic who commits treason against the Fatherland by defection, surrender, betrayal; or disclosure of secrets shall be punished by reform through labour for more than five years. In cases where the person commits a grave offence, he or she shall be punished by reform through labour for more than five years and less than ten years.” 19. The source alleges that the above-mentioned petitioners do not have the opportunity to challenge their sudden arrest and indefinite detention as no judicial remedies or appeal procedures are available to detainees of political prison camps. Further, family members cannot petition the authorities for the release of detainees accused of political crimes as such advocacy is considered an act of treason. The source submits that the deprivation of liberty of the petitioners falls within categories I and III of the categories referred to by the Working Group. Response from the Government 20. By letter dated 2 September 2013, the Working Group transmitted the above allegations to the Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, requesting detailed information about the current situation of the above-mentioned petitioners. 21. The Government, in its reply dated 7 October 2013, stated that these alleged cases form part of a political plot against the People’s Democratic Republic of Korea by the Republic of Korea authorities. The Government therefore “categorically rejects the cases … as one of the anti-DPRK attempts”. Discussion 22. Three different communications were transmitted to the Government and it is unfortunate that in the case of all three (see also No. 34/2013 and No. 36/2013, it responded in exactly the same way as above, in the same letter, without any attempt to discuss the serious allegations imputed against it. 23. The allegations in this case comprise: arrests without warrants; indefinite interrogation periods in the premises of the National Security Agency; incommunicado detention; prosecution based on political considerations, including as an act of reprisal for leaving the country, or on the basis of vague offences that are general and imprecise; a total absence of judicial mechanisms to challenge the legality of the detention or to launch an appeal against the decisions of conviction; and indefinite detention in political prison camps, often following the completion of the prison sentence. 5