한국 자유권 대응 시민사회 활동 보고대회

유엔, 한국 인권에 대해 말하다

2015년 11월 25일(수) 오후 7시, 서울시 시민청 워크샵룸

지난 10/22 ~23, 스위스 제네바에서 한국 자유권 심의가 10년 만에 열렸습니다. 유엔 자유권위원회가 한국의 전반적인 시민적, 정치적 권리 실태를 점검하고, 한국 정부에 권고를 내리는 것이지요. 그리고 지난 11/5 "성소수자들에 대한 차별 철폐, 양심적 병역 거부자 전원 즉각 석방 및 사면, 평화로운 집회결사의 자유 보장" 등을 포함한 유례없이 강력한 최종 권고가 발표되었습니다. 

국제사회에서 바라보는 한국 인권 실태는 어떠할까요? 유엔에서 내린 권고는 국내에서 어떤 의미가 있을까요? 심의 대응을 위해 제네바에 다녀온 권고사냥꾼(!) 한국 NGO 대표단이 그 생생한 이야기를 전하는 자리를 마련했습니다.

흔치 않은 기회, 보고대회를 놓치지 마세요! I. CCPR. U.

프로그램 

사회 : 김태석 (대한변호사협회 국제인권특별위원회 위원)

자유권 대응 시민사회 활동 전반 소개  : 백가윤 (참여연대 국제연대위원회)

자유권 권고 분석

1. 차별금지와 성소수자의 권리 : 류민희 (공익인권변호사모임 희망을 만드는 법, 성소수자 차별반대 무지개행동)

2. 이주민 권리와 인신매매: 정신영 (공익법센터 어필)

3. 표현의 자유와 프라이버시 : 박경신 (오픈넷, 참여연대, 고려대학교)

4. 국가보안법과 북한인탈주민보호센터 : 김기남 (민주사회를위한변호사모임)

제네바 현지에서의 만남들 : 홍승기 (유엔인권정책센터)

참가신청 >> 클릭

주최 : 유엔 자유권 심의 대응 한국 NGO 모임

문의 : 참여연대 국제연대위원회 (02-723-5051, [email protected])

115th Session of the Human Rights Committee
19 October 2015 – 6 November 2015

NGO Briefing on the Republic of Korea

Oral Statement Delivered by Ms. Gayoon Baek(People’s Solidarity for Participatory Democracy) and Mr. Youngsoug Chang(MINBYUN-Lawyers for a Democratic Society) 
on Behalf of South Korean Human Rights Organizations Network (83 NGOs)

We are presenting this statement on behalf of 83 civil society organizations in the Republic of Korea who jointly submitted the report to the Committee. All the rights mentioned in the Covenants are our areas of focus.

Human rights were once a pride for Koreans. But today, we are grieved to present the report with shame. Civil and political rights in the Republic of Korea have been drastically deteriorating year after year. We fear that the Republic of Korea is reverting to the dark era of authoritarian regime that we believed to have overcome. One can easily find human rights defenders in the Republic of Korea, on the streets, on top of factory chimneys, in front of the court, and in prison. Sewol ferry victims’ families have been living on the streets to protest for more than a year, workers have been on a hunger strike for more than 45 days, and villagers have been protesting against the naval base construction for more than 9 years.  As we speak today, hundreds of high school students are protesting on the streets opposing the Government’s plan to impose state history textbooks, which is suspected to idealize past military dictatorship. The Government has failed to protect people’s civil and political rights and people are compelled to run to the streets with candles. 

Although rule of law, freedom of expression and independence of judiciary are guaranteed in the Constitution, the laws have been used as tools to justify restriction and suppression of human rights and people have lost their freedom after expressing their views. The judiciary no longer defends human rights defenders, and is no longer a safeguard for human rights victims. The National Human Rights Commission of Korea also cannot play an active role in monitoring implementation of the Covenant and we have a serious concern that transparent and independent selection process of the Commissioners are not yet guaranteed which brings doubts on human rights competency and expertise of commissioners. 

The number of people who have been charged and indicted for violating the National Security Act, which the Committee and other UN human rights mechanisms have repeatedly recommended to amend or repeal, has increased threefold in 2013 compared to 2008. Government officials and agencies consistently punish people for defamation  or insult  who criticize the Government, sometimes even those who state facts or simply express feelings or opinions. On the other hand, human rights defenders and social minorities become targets of incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence. However, there is no legal framework nor gestures from the Government showing any political will to protect them. The society is now at a critical juncture. 

People who gather to peacefully protest against Government policies or development projects are being arrested, detained and indicted. The police use excessive force against barehanded protesters to suppress assemblies, such as water cannons loaded with capsaicin and tear gas liquid and bus barricades to block assemblies. Even human rights lawyers and journalists have been arrested during protests. Around 550 people including family members of the victims were arrested during the Sewol ferry related protests from April 2014 to May 2015. We are not allowed to stand in solidarity with our friends, not to mention participating in assemblies. One worker who visited labor strike sites to deliver support statements has been punished for aid and abetment of Obstruction of Business. 

The Republic of Korea has the highest Internet penetration rate and the fastest wireless broadband in the world. With this technology, the Government is watching and intervening in people’s private lives. The police can identify those who are at protests by seizing and analyzing all phone call histories from the nearby base stations. Phone or internet users’ personal information can be seized without warrants, and such seizure is significantly increasing, amounting to about 13 million accounts in 2014 in a country with just 50 million people. Children under 19 years old must use mobile phones equipped with applications enabling the parents and service providers to monitor and remotely control their phones. 

We are also subject to human rights violations under the name of counter-terrorism. All currently pending counter-terrorism bills grant excessive authority to the National Intelligence Service (NIS) which is notorious for its abuse of power and human rights violations. The NIS systematically intervened in the 2012 Presidential Election by posting and tweeting 786,000 online messages. Also, the NIS was found fabricating evidence of an espionage case.   

In face of gross violation of civil and political rights in the country, people cannot gain full access to justice and are unfairly treated during investigations. Only 0.2% of investigators are indicted of maltreating the accused.  Even though lawyer’s participation is crucial to prevent such harassment, the police and prosecutor’s office arbitrarily interpret the Criminal Procedural Act to minimize lawyers’ participation. Generally, lawyers are limited in presenting their views during the interrogation and sometimes, lawyers are even threatened by the investigators.   

The human rights situation in detention centers is also problematic. The disciplinary punishment committees of prisons are not guaranteed of their independence and fairness, as the prison warden appoints members of the committee. Almost 90% of the actual punishment in the prison has been executed in the form of solitary confinement, which is the most severe disciplinary measure. 

In particular, children, transgenders and foreigners in detention centers are facing more serious human rights violations. Children are denied protective measures under relevant regulations in the criminal procedures. Moreover, detention centers have no guidelines on the treatment of transgenders.  Because of this, transgender inmates are denied underwear of their own choice and there was a case where a transgender inmate was punished for refusing to get a haircut.  Furthermore, foreigners detained in detention centers may be subject to indefinite detention due to lack of legal regulation on maximum detention periods. In the event the Minister of Justice commenced detention that is not subject to independent judicial review, the detainees are prevented from disputing the legality of the detention. The deportation rooms at Incheon International Airport practically function as detention centers since detainees are restrained from outside contact and denied access to attorney.

Recently in 2014, the existence of the DPRK Defector Protection Center (former Central Joint Interrogation Center) was widely known by testimony of one detainee. When DPRK defectors come to the Republic of Korea, they are sent to the center for interrogation, but nobody knows what exactly is happening inside. We do not know how many DPRK defectors are being detained for how long, and whether they are being deported or not. Access to the center is strictly regulated by the NIS. Also, there are some DPRK defectors in the Republic of Korea who wish to go back to the DPRK, but their return is not allowed by the Government on grounds of violations of the National Security Act.  

The military, where all Korean men are mandated to serve, is another blind spot for human rights violations. Almost 3,600 human rights violations such as assault and other cruel acts have been reported in the last five years, but only 1.4% of perpetrators were sentenced to imprisonment. The Military Court, which deals with assault and cruel acts in the military, is not independent because commissioned officers and commanders, who are not judges, exercise judicial power. Soldiers may be detained for up to 15 days in military prison as disciplinary action without a warrant and judicial scrutiny. The decision for detainment is not even made by the military court, but only by military superiors. 

When a country’s human rights situation regresses, marginalized groups become even more marginalized. Women, persons with disabilities, LGBTIs and people with HIV/AIDS, and children continue to be discriminated against. Since the last review in 2006, the gender wage gap still remains the highest among OECD countries and more than half of female workers are non-regular workers. The right to equal recognition before the law of persons with disabilities’ continues to be greatly affected.

We have two LGBTI friends in this room. They experience discrimination on a daily basis. They are discriminated against when they go to the police to report their annual pride parade, when they become victims of rape, when they want to enjoy same rights as heterosexual couples, and even when they want to set up an NGO to advocate their own rights. They are even punished under sodomy provisions in the Military Criminal Act. Persons with HIV/AIDS are suffering from stigma and discrimination when they receive medical services. The Government is turning a blind eye to this injustice and homophobic/transphobic groups who incite hatred against LGBTIs and persons with HIV/AIDS, and do not show any political will to legislate a comprehensive Anti-Discrimination Act. 

Even though UN human rights mechanisms such as the Committee on the Rights of the Child has repeatedly recommended to the Government to abolish corporal punishment, it is still prevalent in schools and at homes. Examples of these punishments include staying down in push-up position for hours, repeatedly sitting up and down 100 times, or raising one’s arms above the head for one hour. These severe punishments can be explained in line with widespread military culture in the society. 

Finally, the rapid economic growth of the Republic of Korea has expanded the geographical boundaries of human rights violations. Many companies from the Republic of Korea are responsible for forced labour in Uzbekistan and violation of indigenous people’s rights in India. However, the Government does not provide legal framework for the implementation of extra-territorial obligations under the Covenant. Narrow definitions of human trafficking in the Criminal Act limit protection of victims, as seen in the incident of abuse of disabled men and homeless in the salt farm, sexual exploitation of foreign women, and exploitation of migrant farm workers.  

As is clear from our presentation, the Government of the Republic of Korea does not comply with the Covenant and does not fulfill its commitment as a member of the Human Rights Council. We do not wish to go back to the time when we could not speak out freely. To bring people on the streets back to their normal lives, we hope our areas of concerns will be reflected in the Committee's concluding observations. 

We thank you. 

Concluding Remarks by the Chairperson of the Human Rights Committee Fabián Omar Salvioli

 

Obviously a great number of issues have been raised, and I’m not going to give you an exhaustive list, but I’d like to highlight that we’d like to see the withdrawal of the reservation of art. 22, just as we’ve seen the withdrawal of reservation under art. 15; because we don’t really see from the dialogue why you need to maintain the reservation. Now your Excellency said that you are going to give the highest priority to the HRCttee’s observations and comments. So we very much hope that you will do this through effective mechanism in order to be able to comply with our recommendations and the provisions of the optional protocol, particularly when it comes to conscientious objection. Here the Committee has a very clear stance on this issue. And for me, I’ve had trouble hearing conscientious objectors described as criminals when really they are exercising a right. So, we very much hope that you will be able to comply with the provisions of the Covenant in this area, and also to ensure that the human rights provisions are aligned with the principles. And when it comes to the operations of Korean businesses abroad, want to ensure that they comply with human rights. Mr. Iwasawa raised the issue of equality and nondiscrimination when it comes to various groups of people, particularly LGBTI population. Counter-terrorism measures must also effectively comply with the provisions enshrined in the Covenant as Mr. Shany articulated in his concern. Regarding torture and mistreatment, this is another issue of concern, the use of certain protective measures sometimes as a form of punishment is not compatible with the Covenant. Obviously the right to integrity is crucial. Legal aid, access to lawyer, I would refer you to our General Comment 32 which provides very helpful guidelines for the state to be able to bear in mind the need for the exercise of defense. 

 

Freedom of assembly and freedom of expression are crucial in a democratic society. We have had difficulties during this dialogue to ensure that this issue is fully understood. We very much hope that after this dialogue you will take legislative measures and other measures necessary to ensure that these rights are fully given effect to. Finally, groups that are particularly vulnerable that require attention, like those living with HIV, and the need not to stigmatize these individuals based on the various measures my colleagues referred to. And of course the migration population, due to their various situations, needs more protection in general in order to ensure that their human rights are guaranteed and upheld. I’d like to thank you all very much.

The dialogue must go on

PSPD strongly condemns the announcement of the abrupt withdrawal of the US from the DPRK-US Summit

On May 24 President Donald Trump of the United States canceled the summit scheduled to take place on June 12 in Singapore with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, shortly after ROK-US summit in Washington DC and North Korea's destruction of its Punggye-ri nuclear test facility. This act is very rude and clearly goes against all the efforts and world’s support for the peace process on the Korean Peninsula. The People’s Solidarity for Participatory Democracy (PSPD) strongly condemns the abrupt announcement by the US on its withdrawal from the planned DPRK-US summit and urges the US to return to the summit.

President Donald Trump wrote that he was pulling out of the meeting because of North Korea’s recent “tremendous anger and open hostility.” It was, however, the US who actually provoked North Korea, by mentioning the "Libya Model" and "abandoning nuclear weapons first, compensating afterwards." The hostile communication between DPRK and US is the very reason the DPRK-US summit is necessary.

We, the Korean people, who wholeheartedly welcomed the inter-Korean summit and the Panmunjeom Declaration in April, are now deeply disappointed by the recent ROK-US “Max Thunder” joint military exercise, the cancellation of high-level inter-Korean talks, and the sudden cancellation of the DPRK-US summit. Through the inter-Korean summit, we have affirmed the power of dialogue. We believe that the only realistic way to alleviate the military tension surrounding the Korean Peninsula and to establish permanent peace and denuclearization on the Korean Peninsula is through dialogue and negotiation. The dialogue must go on.

[Statement] See / Download

Korean Version >>

GPPAC Northeast Asia Statement Welcoming the 2018 Inter-Korean Summit

Supporting new hope for peace on the Korean Peninsula,

towards a peaceful, nuclear-weapons free Northeast Asia

April 28, 2018

The Global Partnership for the Prevention of Armed Conflict (GPPAC) Northeast Asia, a network of civil society organizations working for peace and dialogue in the region, wholeheartedly congratulates the leaders of the DPRK and the ROK, as well as the Korean people, for the historic achievement of the “Panmunjeom Declaration for Peace, Prosperity and Unification of the Korean Peninsula” issued following the Inter-Korean Summit of April 27, 2018 at the Peace House on the southern side of Korea's Demilitarized Zone (DMZ). The Summit contributed to a significant reduction of tensions and indeed avoidance of the catastrophe of a potential nuclear war. Furthermore, it showed the world the true impact of committed leadership and diplomacy, and the direct, personal meeting between the leaders of both Koreas sent a powerful wave of emotion around the world.

The landmark steps of goodwill and promises for action shown on this day mark a historic moment, and the beginning of a “new era of peace” for the Korean Peninsula and Northeast Asia. A peaceful resolution of the ongoing tensions on the Korean Peninsula, and a shift from the current Armistice regime to a permanent peace regime, is vital for the security not only of both Koreas, but for the Northeast Asia region as a whole. We strongly welcome the declaration to bring a swift end to the war on the Korean Peninsula, and realize a peace treaty, as well as the concrete steps outlined to end hostilities and encourage active cooperation. Concrete steps including the establishment of a joint liaison office, continued high-level dialogue, and active contacts will mark the historic start of this new area.

Reaffirmation of the common goal of attaining a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula through “complete denuclearization” is greatly encouraging. We also share the view that the DPRK's measures to cease nuclear and missile tests are important steps for reducing tensions. We sincerely hope that these developments will be followed by clear commitments for the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula and for nuclear disarmament by all related parties. Both Koreas could celebrate complete denuclearization by together signing the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. We call on other parties in the region to also do so, as a step towards the future establishment of a Nuclear-Weapon-Free-Zone in Northeast Asia.

The encouragement of more active cooperation in social, economic and cultural fields is also significant, as are the steps outlined regarding practical implementation of previous agreements. We underline the role played by cultural exchange in creating the positive environment for the Inter-Korean Summit. Having organized regional civil society meetings at joint sites such as Mt Kumgang and the Kaesong Industrial Complex, we can directly testify to their significance as symbolic spaces for interaction between people from both Koreas and internationally, as well as for concrete cooperation and the development of joint inter-Korean institutions – important steps towards eventual unification. We therefore welcome commitments to expand such activities, such as on June 15 and other upcoming events. The clear declaration to restart reunions for tragically separated families, and solve humanitarian issues on the peninsula, are also crucial steps forward.

GPPAC Northeast Asia, with members from throughout the region including both Koreas, pledges to continue to do all we can to support diplomacy and the creation of an environment in which the Panmunjeom Declaration, as well as past agreements and future efforts to build peace, can be realized. In 2018, we will continue to convene the Ulaanbaatar Process, our civil society dialogue for regional peace and stability, to complement official processes towards the development of a peaceful, nuclear-free Northeast Asia.

We call upon the international community to undertake all efforts to support the implementation of the Panmunjeom Declaration, as well as previous joint agreements. The success of this Summit should be carried on to the upcoming US-DPRK discussions, which we sincerely hope will conclude with concrete steps towards denuclearization and a peace treaty for the Korean Peninsula. Space should be ensured for all stakeholders, including GPPAC members, civil society, states and the United Nations, to make utmost efforts to build on this success, and work towards the establishment of regional peacebuilding mechanisms for Northeast Asia.

The Summit is a powerful symbol of a process to overcome conflict and achieve peace through shifting from reaction to prevention. We sincerely believe that the realization of peace on the Korean Peninsula will develop into peace for the Northeast Asian region, and in turn contribute to momentum for building peace and security around the world.

>> Download

South Korean Civil Society’s Declaration against the General Security of Military Information Agreement (GSOMIA) between the Government of the Republic of Korea and the Government of Japan 

Immediately cease the GSOMIA negotiation

(16 November 2016, Seoul) We, 225 public figures and 113 civil society organisations, call upon Park Geun-hye administration to stop the signing of dogmatic, undemocratic and unpeaceful General Security of Military Information Agreement (GSOMIA) between the Government of the Republic of Korea and the Government of Japan. Both governments held the first meeting in Tokyo on 1st of November, the second meeting in Seoul on 9th of November, the third meeting in Tokyo on 14th of November and tentatively initialed the GSOMIA. The Park administration has already requested the legislative office for examination in an aim to ratify the GSOMIA within this month. We strongly condemn the government’s undemocratic decision and warn the Government to immediately stop negotiation on the GSOMIA.

We strongly protest against the way how negotiation process has been carried out in an unfair and non-transparent manner. As we all recall, this Agreement was secretly carried out to the point of initialing by Lee Myung-bak administration in 2012 and was ceased due to the strong opposition from the people. People were outraged by the fact that the government pushed ahead with the agreement without consensus from the general public with the power vested and the national assembly as the representative body of the government.  

This undemocratic behavior is repeated and getting even worse. The Ministry of National Defense, which is mainly responsible for the GSOMIA has vowed until recently that forming general public consensus is crucial and that the “signing the GSOMIA can only be proceeded with conditions established.” Regardless, the Park Geun-hye administration has disregarded such conditions and without any attempt to reach a general public’ s consensus, it has decided to continue signing the GSOMIA like a military operation. 
 
While South Korean people are angered and shocked by the recent Presidential scandal, the GSOMIA is being enforced. As proved by a million protesting on 12th of November, majority of people are calling for the President’s immediate resignation. As the Park administration has failed to carry out the constitutional responsibility bestowed by the people, it is not qualified to proceed the GSOMNIA. Paradoxically speaking, this GSOMIA negotiation clearly proves that the President must not be involved both in domestic and international affairs. 
 

We are extremely concerned about the negative impact of the GSOMIA. The government has granted indulgence through abruptly settling on the Agreement on ‘comfort women’ to Abe Shinzo administration in Japan, which has been right wing-led and distorted its history of aggression. Signing the GSOMIA will rather encourage Japan’s remilitarization and exercise of collective self-defense. As the most affected victims of Japanese imperialism, we will not accept the government to blindly take such actions.  

The GSOMIA will instigate the possible new cold war in Northeast Asia. Republic of Korea is the closest neighboring country to North Korea, an explicit enemy of the US-Japan alliance, and China and Russia, strategic competitor countries of US. The reason for the US-Japan alliance to include South Korea in their military strategy largely lies in geopolitical factor. The Korean Peninsula will be a strategic advantage as battle front and troop as the last resort. The South Korea-US-Japan Military Information Sharing Pact signed in 2014 and Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) deployment decision made in this July are in the same context. Such South Korea’s trilateral alliance may raise increasing concern in strengthening the trilateral alliance between North Korea, China and Russia. The result will be a new cold war in Northeast Asia and exacerbation of arms race as well as permanent loss of peace on the Korean Peninsula. As the victim of cold war, we will not allow the re-emergence of a new cold war. 

Some may assert that military cooperation with Japan is necessary in a pragmatic approach against the acceleration of North Korea’s missile and nuclear weapon threats. Nevertheless, the GSOMIA for trilateral missile defense system establishment will not assure South Korea’s safety. According to a report published by the US Congress Research Service (CRS) in June, 2013, it is assured that “South Korea might not benefit as much, because it is so close to North Korea that incoming missiles would likely fly on a lower trajectory and could arrive in a matter of minutes.” Considering our reality that we are still under ceasefire, this is a valid criticism. 

Military approach like the GSOMIA will clearly not stop North Korea’s nuclear development. This is just expansive reproduction of a failed policy. This will only lead to self-harm result in the Korean Peninsula. This will erupt cold war in Northeast Asia in reality and waste valuable resources that should be utilized for welfare and proliferation of humanity not for military competition.

The cooperation between South Korea-Japan and South Korea-US-Japan should not head in such direction. The objective of cooperation should be focused on peace and the means should be through diplomatic channels. Six-party talks should be resumed as it has been discontinued for about past eight years and relations between North and South Korea, North Korea and the US as well as North Korea and Japan should be resolved.

However, the Park administration has clearly proved that it has no will or capability to do so. It is gradually being disclosed that a shadowy advisor who is at the center of the corruption scandal has exerted extensive influence on domestic and international affairs but the government is still attempting to sign the GSOMIA. '

We will never accept such a historical regression. We can no longer trust the government that has lost ability to realize the seriousness of the issue and the President Park Geun-hye has no credibility, qualification or capability as a leader of this country. 

11 January 2016

United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon
UN Headquarters
405 East 42nd Street
New York, NY 10017
USA    

Cc : Zainab Hawa Bangura, UN Special Representative on Sexual Violence in Conflict
Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights
Rashida Manjoo, UN Special Rapporteur on Violence against Women
Pablo de Greiff, UN Special Rapporteur on the Promotion of Truth, Justice, Reparation, and Guarantees of Non-recurrence
H.E. Choi Kyong-lim, President of the UN Human Rights Council
Members of the UN Committee against Torture
Members of the UN Human Rights Committee 
    

Re: Clarification on the UN Secretary-General’s Position on the Recent Republic of Korea-Japan Agreement on Wartime “Comfort Women”

People's Solidarity for Participatory Democracy (PSPD) is a non-governmental organization based in Seoul, the Republic of Korea (ROK) with United Nations(UN) ECOSOC consultative status. We are writing to you today to seek clarification of the Secretary-General's position on the recent ROK-Japan agreement on wartime “comfort women”. We express our concern on your recent congratulatory remarks on the agreement, because we view that the agreement was not made in a way to implement the values and principles put forth by the UN, which has emphasized a victim-centered approach.

In the official statement regarding the recent agreement between the ROK and Japan on issues related to “comfort women” from the ROK which was released on 28 December 2015, you welcomed “that the Governments of Japan and the Republic of Korea have reached an agreement,” and hoped “that the agreement will contribute to improving the bilateral relationship between the two countries.” Following your statement, the ROK President’s Office (Blue House) released a briefing on 1 January 2016, saying that you congratulated President Park Geun-hye, via telephone, on reaching the agreement with Japan, and stated that “history will laud President Park’s courageous decision based on her vision.”   

Yet, the latest agreement between the ROK and Japan hardly reflects the wishes of the victims themselves, nor did the process involve any participation by the victims. Lee Yong-soo, one of the few surviving victims of Japan’s wartime sexual slavery policy, harshly criticized the agreement, saying “The agreement does not reflect the views of former ’comfort women’. I will ignore it completely.”  Ms. Lee condemned the deal as amounting to “a second death of the victims.” The latest agreement indeed does not incorporate any of the demands which include official apologies, legal reparations, and guarantees of non-recurrence. The victims have consistently put forward these demands since making their past agony public for the first time in 1991. According to the recent agreement, the Japanese government did promise to provide JPY 1 billion (around 8.3 million USD) for a new special fund to be set up for a foundation for the surviving “comfort women”. However, Mr. Fumio Kishida, Japanese Minister of Foreign Affairs, made it clear that the money was not legal reparation , and still refuses to recognize Japan’s legal responsibility for wartime sexual slavery. However, the governments of both countries have concluded that the latest agreement will be the “final and irreversible” resolution to the “comfort women” issues, thus inviting mounting criticism from inside and outside the ROK.

We would like to remind you that the latest agreement on “comfort women” does not even satisfy the UN recommendations regarding Japan’s wartime sexual slavery and related issues which were made in the past. Different human rights mechanisms of the UN have condemned the acts of wartime sexual slavery committed by Japan as “crimes against humanity,” and recommended that the Japanese government acknowledge its legal responsibility, make formal reparations to the victims, and prosecute the parties responsible for such crimes. During its review on Japan in July 2014, the UN Human Rights Committee noted that most “comfort women” were recruited by, transported to, and managed at Japanese military bases or agencies working on behalf of the Japanese military through force and coercion, and expressed concerns at the Japanese government’s continued denial that these women were “ever mobilized or migrated by force” (CCPR/C/JPY/CO/6, para 11). In August 2014, the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination expressed its concerns that the Japanese government had not recognized nor apologized to “comfort women”, and urged the Japanese government to immediately conclude investigations and bring to justice those responsible for human rights violations (CERD/C/JPN/CO/7-9, para 18).

We would also like to point out that the UN and the international community at large uphold a consistent set of victim-centered principles and standards with respect to the rights of victims of human rights violations.

In February 2005, the UN Commission on Human Rights (now the UN Human Rights Council) adopted “Principles for the protection and promotion of human rights through action to combat impunity” (E/CN.4/2005/102/Add.1), followed by “Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law” (A/60/509/Add.1) adopted by the UN General Assembly in December 2005. These two documents endorse the “victim-centered perspective” in international human rights law, and emphasize the victims’ right to justice, right to reparation, and right to know. These documents also stress as essential principles the need to give victims restitution, compensation, rehabilitation, reparation, and redress.

Since its establishment in 2002, the International Criminal Court has also stressed the need for victim participation in all phases of investigation and judicial procedures. “The Chicago Principles on Post-Conflict Justice 2001-2008”, which provide basic guidelines on the handling of atrocities perpetrated under authoritarian rule and amid armed conflicts, also emphasize: “Policies that seek justice for past violations should be victim-centered and should address victims’ rights to remedies and reparations.”

We note with serious concern that your remarks on "welcoming" the recent agreement between the ROK and Japan, and lauding it as a “courageous decision” by the South Korean President are not in line with the human rights principles and positions the UN and the international community have accumulated so far. 

We would therefore like to request your response to the following questions to further clarify your position. 

1. Do you think that the recent agreement between South Korea and Japan satisfy the UN-emphasized principles of the rights of the victims of human rights violations and properly address war crime legacies and past recommendations made by the UN human rights mechanisms to Japan?

2. According to the briefing issued by the Presidential Blue House of the ROK, you phoned the President of the ROK to discuss the recent agreement. Have you done the same with the Prime Minister of Japan? If so, what exactly was discussed or remarked in the latter conversation? If no such conversation took place with the Prime Minister of Japan, why have you had such a conversation with the President of the ROK and not with the Prime Minister of Japan?

3. The UN Secretary-General is obligated to make efforts to promote human rights in all Member States. Therefore, some argue that the UN Secretary-General should help invalidate the recent agreement between the ROK and Japan that seems to condone war crimes. What do you think of this argument?

4. Is the Secretary-General inclined to urge both the government of the Republic of Korea and Japanese governments to resolve the “comfort women” issues through official apologies, legal reparations, and guarantees of non-recurrence from the Japanese state through processes that are actually based upon victim participation?

We thank you for your reply in advance and look forward to hearing back from you at the earliest possible time. If you have any questions or would like clarification, please do not hesitate to contact us at [email protected] or +82 (0)2 723 4250. 

Yours sincerely,

 
Ms. Hyunback Jung
Co-Representative
People's Solidarity for Participatory Democracy