As above, it is clear that SSA makes all the decisions in the process of preliminary investigation/investigation and detention in the PPC. However, the SSA internal process of discussion and final decision-making, if it is other than completely arbitrary, is not known at this time. “Of course, there was no trial for me since I was innocent anyway. There was no trial or judicial proceeding of any kind---not once! Not even a rubber-stamp trial or a single visit by a lawyer or anything like that-- even for my father who was the actual suspect! In the case of my father, they spent six months for the preliminary investigation and the final determination was made by the police and the 2nd Economic Committee, not by a court of law. It was a political purge. Would you expect to have a lawyer or court action for a political punishment in North Korea? My father was deprived of his post and duty in the Party and was simply sent to a PPC. That was the end of whole thing. We were not the exception and we came to learn that no prisoners in the PPC had received any form of a fair trial.” (0 Myong-o from PPC No. 18) It has been established that PPC No. 18, unlike other PPC, is under the control of the police. However, it is not known, due to insufficient information, in what way it is distinct from other PPC that come under SSA control. It is not known, for example, if any unique type of offenders is sent to PPC No.18. In the case of 0 Myong-o, his testimony makes it clear that the decisions for arrest and detention at PPC were made by the police and his father’s employer, the 2nd Economic Committee, but he fails to provide information on the actual decision-making process. As PPC No. 18 was under the control of the National Police Ministry, it appears clear that decisions were made by the police. It is assumed that offenders accused of economic crimes, rather than political crime, are sent there but so far we are without information on the criteria for detention in PPC No. 18. No information is available on the SSA internal process for decisionmaking, e.g. at which level, or who makes the decision, and if the Party organization or court are involved and exert influence. Information is also not available on (1) the criteria of detention at the PPC, (2) differences between maximum-security camps and high-security camps, (3) criteria for punishment of an entire family, (4) duration of detention, and (5) which PPC is chosen for detention. Analysis of the information on the decision-making process, criteria and the organization making the decision is important for the survey of operation and definition of the character of the various PPC. Nevertheless, the information is not available at present as the testimonies available until now are from former prisoners, guards and supervisors, not from any officials who were actually involved with the process. Further information would be pending until new data and testimonies become available on the issue. On the other 69