A/HRC/4/15 page 10 Code distinguished the act of border crossing into two categories. Simple acts of crossing of ‘those crossing the border illegally’ would be punished with correctional labour for up to three years (art. 17). Crossing the border ‘to flee from the country to another country or with the aim of toppling the Republic’ would be sentenced to correctional labour for 5 to 10 years. In more serious cases, correctional labour punishment for over 10 years or death sentences would be handed down, along with confiscation of all properties. Also, article 233 of the revised 2004 Penal Code defines ‘border crossing’ broadly as ‘those going and coming across the border’ instead of ‘simple crossing’ in the old Penal Code. Furthermore, the level of the mandatory sentence for the crime of ‘illegal going and coming across the border’ was reduced from three years to two years of ‘labour training’ punishment. Since two years of ‘labour training’ is equivalent to one year of ‘correctional labour’, the level of punishment was reduced from three years to one year of ‘correctional labour’.”10 22. If the sanctions are being reduced, this is a constructive development, but it needs to be monitored further to assess whether there is genuine, systematic mitigation rather than ad hoc reductions of sentencing. The preferred position is that those who left the country in search of refuge elsewhere should not be punished at all for having left the country without an exit visa. This would also help to fulfil the spirit of the country’s 1998 Constitution whose article 75 states that “citizens shall have freedom of residence and travel”. 23. Several persons interviewed by the Special Rapporteur have had experience with forced return to the country of origin and the punishments inflicted. If those who had left the country were “first-timers” without political affiliations, they would be questioned upon return without necessarily being punished. If they had left several times and subsequently returned, punishments would be increased accordingly, beginning with re-education and forced labour. If they had had access to religious groups or non-governmental organizations in neighbouring countries, they would be punished severely, with long-term incarceration in political prisons for those seen as being antithetical to the regime in the country of origin. 24. Second, there is the issue of the responses on the part of first asylum countries. At the national level, such asylum countries have the tendency to shun the term “refugees” for national policy reasons so as to ensure that they have broad discretion in their treatment of the influxes. While the euphemism “humanitarian cases” is relatively acceptable when applied to those seeking refuge, the rubric “illegal immigrants” should be avoided since not only does it stigmatize the persons seeking refuge, but also it criminalizes the victim and creates an injustice. 25. The practices towards refugees vary by country and geographical area. Some countries forcibly return them, while others offer temporary refuge. Some countries do not prosecute them for illegal entry, while others do. Some countries keep them in detention in immigration jails or prisons, while others keep them in closed facilities under the supervision of military or intelligence personnel, although not prosecuting them as illegal immigrants. In the opinion of the Special Rapporteur, those who seek refuge should not be treated as illegal immigrants and 10 White Paper on Human Rights in North Korea 2006, see note 4 above, p. 273.