A/HRC/7/20 page 11 been reports of greater leniency of treatment of returnees on some fronts. For example, in the case where those who exit the country because of hunger are returned to the country, they would tend to be questioned by the authorities rather than imprisoned. However, other cases, such as those who repeatedly exit the country without permission, those with political affiliations seen as hostile to the authorities or those who seek the help of missionaries in neighbouring countries are subjected to punishment, ranging from re-education to forced labour and incarceration. 30. The situation facing those who seek refuge abroad remains disconcerting for a number of reasons.18 First, due to the more restrictive border conditions, it has become more difficult for groups to access asylum in some of the neighbouring countries. Those who access those countries tend to depend on smugglers, with large sums (promised) passing hands in the process. Second, there is a difference between those who left the country a while ago and who resided in a neighbouring country for several years before moving on to another country, and those who exited recently and headed for another asylum country, transiting briefly in a neighbouring country. With regard to the former, there is the question of whether those who resided in the neighbouring country for a long period, say for over 10 years, should be eligible to seek resettlement via another country of refuge. Perhaps the best test is to ask whether such persons are protected by the country of origin and/or by the country of residence. If not, the door to resettlement in another country should be open to them. With regard to both groups - the longstayers and the newcomers - there is regrettably the threat that they will be prosecuted in some of the countries of refuge for illegal entry. The Special Rapporteur has emphasized in his reports that they should not be prosecuted and that they should not be treated as illegal immigrants.19 Rather, they should be treated as asylum-seekers or refugees deserving international protection. Another possibility would be to treat them as humanitarian cases, not subjected to the strictures of the immigration laws of the countries where they seek asylum. It is worth remembering that there is conceptually a difference between refugees and illegal immigrants: while the latter are still protected by the country of origin, the former are not and should thus be afforded international protection. 31. Secondly, there is the question of the status of children born in other countries from one or more parents who are nationals of the country in question. In the case where the parent is living clandestinely in the country where the child is born, it is often difficult to register the birth of the child, unless a special deal is agreed upon, often illicitly, with the authorities. There is also the question of the child’s nationality. Given that all nationals of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea are in principle seen in the law of the Republic of Korea as South Korean citizens, would the same apply to the child born outside the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea? The approach of the Special Rapporteur is to invite responses to ensure that the child does not become stateless. 18 Ho Kyung-hwa, “The Human Rights Status of North Korean Refugee Women and Children, and Suggestions to Improve and Protect their Rights”, in Proceedings of The Fourth General Assembly of International Parliamentarians’ Coalition for North Korean Refugees and Human Rights (IPCNKR), Secretariat of the Fourth General Assembly of IPCNKR, Seoul, 2007, pp. 24-33. 19 See note 17 above.