A/HRC/WGAD/2019/69 to provide detailed information about the current situation of Mr. Hwang Won and to clarify the legal provisions justifying his continued detention, as well as its compatibility with the obligations of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea under international human rights law, in particular with regard to the treaties ratified by the State. The Working Group called upon the Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to ensure Mr. Hwang Won’s physical and mental integrity. 36. On 26 August 2019, the Government submitted its response, in which it stated that there was no one in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea who had been forcibly detained against his or her will. The Government further argued that as in previous cases, such communications represented part of the stereotyped political plot against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea by hostile forces that resort to “human rights rackets” using every conceivable means. 37. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea therefore categorically rejected the case of Mr. Hwang Won, viewing it as a scheme devised against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea for political purposes under the disguise of human rights. The Government recommended that the Working Group see through the ulterior motive behind such communications and take a fair and critical attitude towards the ill-minded attempts by hostile forces to recklessly link any issues with the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea on the basis of false information and conjecture. Further comments from the source 38. The reply of the Government was sent to the source for further comments on 26 August 2019, which the source submitted on 9 September 2019. In further comments, the source expresses disappointment at the government response that the communication concerning Mr. Hwang Won represents part of the stereotyped political plot against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea pursued by hostile forces that resort to vicious human rights rackets using every conceivable means and that the Working Group “is recommend [sic] to see through the ulterior motive behind such communication”. The source underlines that it is not interested in a “political plot”, nor does it harbour any “ulterior motive” other than to reunite Mr. Hwang Won with his family. 39. The source further submits that the government response contains no substance. For instance, it notes that there is no proof to back up its claim that “there is no person in [the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea] who has been forcibly detained against his or her will”, while it is beyond reasonable doubt that Korean Air Lines YS-11 was hijacked and taken to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea by its agents on 11 December 1969 and that 11 of the 50 captives have never returned home. 40. The source requests the Working Group to find that the kidnapping and continued detention of Mr. Hwang Won has no legal basis as they constitute manifest violations of the provisions of international treaties to which the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is a party, inter alia: article 11 of the Convention on Offences and Certain Other Acts Committed on Board Aircraft; article 9 of the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft; article 10 (2) of the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation; and article 3 (1) of the 1979 International Convention against the Taking of Hostages. 41. The source further requests the Working Group to reaffirm that national law and courts cannot erect barriers such as immunities, jurisdictional limitations, procedural hurdles or defences based on an “act of State doctrine” in any form that would limit the effectiveness of international law for the violation of peremptory (jus cogens) and erga omnes norms of customary and conventional international law, such as the prohibition of arbitrary deprivation of liberty. 42. The source further notes the explicit reference to the 1969 hijacking of Korean Air Lines YS-11 in the report of the detailed findings of the commission of inquiry on human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (A/HRC/25/CRP.1, paras. 897–899), in which the commission concluded that despite “calls from the international community, no adequate response to this international crime has ever been received”. 43. The source concludes by stating that under certain circumstances widespread or systematic imprisonment or other severe deprivation of liberty in violation of fundamental 5