A/HRC/WGAD/2015/29 13. The source argues that Mr. Kim has not been guaranteed the international norms of due process and fair trial, in violation of articles 9 and 10 of the Declaration, and articles 9 and 14 of the Covenant. As mentioned above, Mr. Kim was arrested without a warrant. He was tried in secret and had no access to lawyer. Mr. Kim’s confession was allegedly falsified by personnel from the National Security Agency. 14. The source asserts that the continued detention of Mr. Kim after he finished serving his sentence is in violation of his right to be free from arbitrary and unlawful detention, as guaranteed in article 9 of the Declaration and article 9 of the Covenant. Thus the detention of Mr. Kim after he finished his sentence, approximately in 2012, to the present could fall under category I of the Working Group’s defined categories of arbitrary detention, given that there is no legal basis to justify the deprivation of liberty. 15. In addition, the source submits that the detention of Mr. Kim should be considered arbitrary, falling under category V, because the deprivation of liberty affecting Mr. Kim was motivated by discrimination based on religion. Response from the Government 16. In its response dated 17 April 2015, the Government stated that Song Hyeok Kim does not exist in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. Thus, according to the Government, the case was not worthy of consideration. The Government further stated: “Such communications are the extension of the stereotyped heinous anti-DPRK political plots by the forces hostile to the DPRK, including the south Korean regime, that resort to every conceivable scheme to intensify the anti-DPRK ‘human rights’ rackets.” 17. Consequently, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea categorically rejects the cases mentioned in the Working Group’s letters as “one of the anti­DPRK attempts”. Discussion1 18. The Working Group regrets that the Government’s response does not assist in assessing the allegations. As this type of response is often the case for communications addressed to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, it does not affect the credibility and the reliability of the coherent and factually detailed information submitted by the source. 19. As in the current case, in its replies in previous cases the Government responded in exactly the same way as above, by means of the same letter, without any concrete response and without any attempt to discuss the serious allegations made against it.2 The Government merely stated in all its responses that it categorically rejected the cases mentioned in the Working Group’s letters “as one of the anti­DPRK attempts”. 20. As the Government chooses not to challenge the prima facie reliable information provided by the source on the violations of Mr. Kim’s rights, the Working Group considers that Mr. Kim was deprived of liberty as a result of the peaceful exercise of his right to freedom of religion. Namely, Mr. Kim was arrested and convicted because of his involvement in the work of promoting Christianity in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and bringing religious texts to the country. 1 2 In accordance with paragraph 5 of the Working Group’s methods of work, in order to avoid a perceived or real conflict of interest with respect to the State concerned Working Group member Seong-Phil Hong was not present during discussions and deliberations in the present case. See Working Group opinions No. 2013/36, No. 2013/35 and No. 2013/34. The Working Group also notes that in 2013, the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances noted that, since its establishment, it had transmitted 20 cases to the Government and that all remained outstanding as the information provided by the Government was not considered sufficient to clarify those cases. 3