시민사회단체, 유엔 특별보고관에

정부의 양심적 병역거부 대체복무제안(案)에 대한 우려 전달

유엔 종교·신념의 자유 & 표현의 자유 특보,

한국 정부에 국제 인권 기준에 부합하는 대체복무제 도입 촉구

오늘(11/14) 국제앰네스티 한국지부, 군인권센터, 민주사회를위한변호사모임, 전쟁없는세상, 참여연대는 Ahmed Shaheed 종교·신념의 자유 특별보고관(Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief)과 David Kaye 표현의 자유 특별보고관(Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression)에게 한국 정부가 논의 중인 양심적 병역거부 대체복무제안(案)에 대한 우려를 전달했다. 

정부가 논의 중인 대체복무제안은 헌법재판소, 대법원의 판결 취지와 국제인권기준에 부합하지 않는 사실상 ‘징벌적 대체복무제’인 것으로 확인되고 있다. 현역 육군 복무기간 기준 2배인 3년의 복무기간, 복무 영역은 교정시설에서 합숙 복무로 단일화, 심사기구는 국방부 산하에 설치, 현역 복무 중에는 대체복무를 신청할 수 없는 것이 골자이다. 

시민사회단체는 특별보고관들에게 전달한 서한을 통해 한국의 양심적 병역거부 상황과 한국 정부 대체복무제안의 문제점을 자세히 설명하고, 지난 수십 년 동안 발표된 유엔 자유권위원회 권고들과 유엔 인권위원회 결의안 등에 근거하여 다음의 5가지를 한국 정부에 권고해달라고 요청했다. ▷비전투적이고 민간(civillian) 성격이며 징벌적인 성격이 아닌, 유엔 인권기구의 권고에 부합하는 대체복무제를 도입할 것 ▷대체복무 기간은 군 복무 기간과 비슷해야 하며 그보다 길게 설정하려면 합리적이고 객관적인 이유에 근거할 것. 유엔 자유권위원회 등의 권고에 따라 대체복무 기간은 군 복무기간의 최대 1.5배를 넘어서는 안 됨 ▷대체복무 신청과 심사는 군 당국의 통제 하에 있어서는 안 되며 군과 완전히 분리된 민간 행정의 관할로 할 것 ▷다양한 형태의 대체복무를 마련할 것 ▷양심적 병역거부는 군 복무 전과 복무 중, 복무 이후 언제든 이뤄질 수 있다는 점을 인식하여 군 복무 중 병역거부권을 인정할 것 등이다.  

앞서 지난 11월 7일(수) 유엔 종교·신념의 자유 특별보고관과 표현의 자유 특별보고관은 한국 정부에 양심적 병역거부에 대한 서한을 보냈다고 밝혔다. 특별보고관들은 서한을 통해 11월 1일 대법원의 무죄 판결과 한국에서 대체복무제 입법 과정이 시작된 것을 환영했다. 이어 한국이 대법원의 판결 취지와 국제 인권법에 맞는 대체복무제를 도입해야 한다고 강력하게 권고하며, 이를 위한 기술적 지원을 제공하겠다고 제안했다.

그동안 유엔 자유권위원회 등 인권기구들은 한국 정부가 국제 인권 기준에 따라 양심적 병역거부자들에게 대체복무를 제공할 의무가 있으며, 이러한 대체복무는 군으로부터 독립된 민간(civilian) 성격이어야 하고, 기간 등에 있어 차별적이거나 징벌적이지 않아야 한다고 꾸준히 권고해왔다. 시민사회단체들은 이에 따라 한국 정부가 국제 인권 기준과 헌법재판소, 대법원의 판결 취지에 부합하는 대체복무제를 도입할 것을 촉구했다.

• 별첨1 : 유엔 종교·신념의 자유, 표현의 자유 특별보고관에게 전달한 한국 시민사회단체 서한
• 별첨2 : 유엔 종교·신념의 자유, 표현의 자유 특별보고관이 한국 정부에 전달한 양심적 병역거부에 대한 서한

* 보도자료 [원문보기/다운로드]

South Korea Must Introduce Alternative Service that is Compatible with International Human Rights Standards

Submitted by Amnesty International Korea, Lawyers for a Democratic Society – Minbyun, Military Human Rights Center Korea, People’s Solidarity for Participatory Democracy and World Without War

 

We are submitting this communication to inform the UN Special Rapporteurs on the current discussion on introducing alternative service for conscientious objectors in the Republic of Korea (South Korea). After the recent ruling at the Constitutional Court which ask the South Korean government to introduce alternative services until 31 December 2019, the Government formed a working group to draft a bill for alternative service. However, the draft bill proposed by the Government working group does not conform to international human rights standards due to its punitive elements according to media reports and informed sources. This clearly goes against the recommendations given to the Government by several UN human rights mechanisms on introducing alternative service for conscientious objectors. The Government plans to announce the bill for the introduction of alternative service in the next few weeks and it is imperative that this bill is in line with international human rights standards.

 

 

1. Background

 

South Korea operates a system of military conscription under which all male citizens should serve in the military for 21 months. Unfortunately, there is no alternative service for conscientious objectors even though recommendations have been repeatedly made to South Korean government by various UN human rights mechanisms to introduce such service. Every year, hundreds of men have been to prison for exercising their freedom of thought, conscience or religion or belief in the South Korea) (see Table 1. According to Jehovah’s Witnesses, more than 19,300 conscientious objectors have been imprisoned in the country over the last 68 years, an accumulative total of 36,800 years of confinement.

 

            <Table 1 : Conscientious Objectors in South Korea Since 2009>

 

                                                       (Unit : persons)

Type	No.	-July 2018	2017	2016	2015	2014	2013	2012	2011	2010	2009
No.	5,450	71	461	557	493	565	623	598	633	721	728
Jehovah’s Witness	5,413	67	460	555	490	564	615	597	627	715	723
Other Personal belief	37	4	1	2	3	1	8	1	6	6	5

 

 

2. Current situation at the Courts

 

The Constitutional Court ruled on 28 June 2018 that Article 5(1) of the Military Service Act did not conform to the Constitution as it did not include provisions for alternative service for conscientious objectors to military service. This ruling gives the South Korean government until 31 December 2019 to introduce alternative service. This ruling was followed by a Supreme Court ruling on 1 November 2018 in which it ruled in a full bench decision by 9-4 that a Jehovah’s Witness objecting to military service for reasons of conscience could not be punished under Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act. The ruling deems conscientious objection a “justifiable ground” for failing to enlist or comply with a call up within a prescribed period after receiving notification.

 

At the time of the Supreme Court ruling, approximately 100 individuals remained imprisoned. This ruling also followed a total of 118 acquittals of conscientious objectors at lower courts since 2004 and is expected to have an influence on over 966 cases pending at courts of all levels including over 200 pending at the Supreme Court. It is unclear at the time of writing what steps the government intends to take to address their release and provide remedy for all of those affected such as through pardon, expunging criminal records and/or compensation.

 

Importantly, in a supplementary opinion submitted to the majority opinion by Justices Park Jung-hwa, Kim Seon- soo and Noh Jeong-hee they write that: “the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ratified by South Korea has the same force as domestic law according to Article 6, Clause 1, of the Constitution and can serve directly as a norm for adjudication.”

 

 

3. Problems of the Government Draft’s Bill

 

Following the 28 June Constitutional Court ruling, the Ministry of National Defense (MND) formed a working group to draft a bill for alternative service. The working group was composed of staff from the MND, Military Manpower Administration (MMA) (which sits under the MND) and the Ministry of Justice (MoJ). In addition, a consultative committee of civilian experts was formed composed of academics, civil society organization representatives and a representative from the National Human Rights Commission of Korea (NHRCK). The work of this consultative committee was coordinated by a representative from the MoJ and a representative from the MMA.

 

A total of seven bills for the establishment of alternative service have been submitted by lawmakers to date, including four bills submitted by Democracy and Peace Party, Bareun Mirae Party and Liberty Korea Party lawmakers following the 28 June Constitutional Court ruling which were far more punitive in nature than previous bills in particular in terms of the nature of work (i.e. mine removal) and length (i.e. 2 times the length of military service or longer) 

 

A public consultation hearing was held jointly by the MND, MoJ and MMA on 4 October in which possible options for alternative service were presented. In particular, it focused on three aspects: 1) length of service, 2) form of service (whether or not those performing alternative service would be housed on site or be able to commute), and 3) field of service Press reports and communication with advisory committee members indicate that the bill when proposed to the National Assembly will have the following elements that fall of short of international human rights standards and law and are likely to be punitive and discriminatory:

 

1. Length of alternative service set at twice that of military service with on-site shared accommodation; 

2. Service limited to work within correctional facilities; 

3. Evaluation committee for assessment of applications to be established under the Ministry of National

Defense. 

4. Applications for conscientious objection will not be accepted during military service.

 

 

4. Suggested Recommendations

 

• South Korea should introduce forms of alternative service for conscientious objectors that are of a non-combatant or civilian character and not of a punitive nature, and compatible with the reasons for objection as recommended by the UN human rights bodies. 
• Alternative service should be of a comparable length to military service and any additional length must be based on reasonable and objective criteria. The proposal by the Government to set the length at twice that of military service would make this the longest alternative service in the world. At its longest,alternative service should not exceed 1.5 times the length of military service consistent with recommendations from the Human Rights Committee. 
• The decision regarding the recognition of the right of conscientious objection should be taken by an administrative civilian authority entirely separate from the military authorities and its composition should guarantee maximum independence and impartiality. 
• South Korea should introduce various forms of alternative service for conscientious objectors which are compatible with the reasons for conscientious objection as recommended by the Commission on Human Rights. 
• Recognizing that a conscientious objection can arise at any time including before, during and after military service, if there is no complete exemption, the authorities should make alternative service accessible to all those with a genuine objection at any time including during military service.

 

5. Contact Details

 

• Tom Rainey-Smith, Campaigns Team, Amnesty International Korea / Email: [email protected] Phone: +82-10-6379-2273
• Yong-Suk Lee, Conscientious Objection Team, World Without War / Email: [email protected] Phone: +82-10-2878-0851

<유엔 종교·신념의 자유, 표현의 자유 특별보고관에게 전달한 한국 시민사회단체 서한>

<유엔 종교·신념의 자유, 표현의 자유 특별보고관이 한국 정부에 전달한 양심적 병역거부에 대한 서한>

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.

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])

16 October 2015

Urgent Appeal to
- The UN Special Rapporteur in the Field of Cultural Rights

Re: Republic of Korea - Government-issued History Textbook 

Dear Ms. Farida Shaheed,

We are writing to you today to express our grave concerns over the announcement made by the Government of the Republic of Korea on 12 October 2015 that the Government will issue middle school history textbook and high school Korean history textbook from 2017. Currently, there are eight different types of history textbooks and they are examined by the National Institute of Korean History before being published. We note with serious concern that the Government-issued history textbook will result the history being written in a way to idealize the history of military dictatorships and indoctrinate people with a standardized history.  

The current Minister of Education, Hwang Woo-yea, said that “it was an inevitable choice in order to eventually realise national cohesion by ending social disputes based on ideological bias and to correct the history”. However, we are all well aware that it is a misconception that there is only one objective truth concerning history. In 1992, the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Korea also ruled that “in the case of Korean history, it is difficult to confirm that one theory is an absolute truth, and when different interpretations exist with valid background, it is essential to present different views.” Article 31(4) of the Constitution stipulates “Independence, professionalism and political impartiality of education and the autonomy of institutions of higher learning shall be guaranteed under the conditions as prescribed by law.”

The Government-issued history textbook create more confusion and ideological conflicts in a society. Most historians announced that they oppose the Government-issued history book and refuse to be authors of the textbook. As a result, only Government friendly historians will be authors. In response to the Government’s decision, history and social science professors, teachers of elementary school, middle school and high school, politicians, 14 Superintendents of Education out of 17, and civil society organisations officially and heavily criticised the Government’s plan to issue official history textbook. In addition, on 12 October 2015, around 15 university students were arrested by the police while protesting against Government-issued history textbook. 

We would like to draw the special attention of the Special Rapporteur on this issue. As you pointed out in the report presented to the 68th Session of the UN General Assembly in 2013, the accreditation of one single history textbook is problematic and State-sponsored textbook carry the risk of being highly politicized. We would appreciate it if you could strongly remind the Government of the Republic of Korea of the importance of diverse history textbook and urge them to withdraw their decision on the Government-issued history textbook.

If you have any questions or need clarifications, please do not hesitate to contact Ms. Gayoon Baek ([email protected], +82 (0)2 723 4250) at any time. We hope this will help in your work.

Yours Sincerely,

CHUNG Hyun-back
Co-Representative 
People’s Solidarity for Participatory Democracy 

People’s Solidarity for Participatory Democracy (PSPD)
PSPD is a non-governmental organization based in Seoul, South Korea. We were founded in 1994 and has been working on promoting people’s participation in government’s decision making process and socio-economic reforms. PSPD has ECOSOC consultative status since 2004.

 

Situation of Freedom of Peaceful Assembly and Association in the Republic of Korea

The UN Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association, Mr. Maina Kiai, is officially visiting South Korea from 20 January to 29 January 2016. South Korean NGOs built a coalition and jointly prepared the Special Rapporteur's visit. As a part of our work, we published the English report "Situation of Freedom of Peaceful Assembly and Association in the Republic of Korea".

31st Regular Session of the UN Human Rights Council

Item 3: Promotion and Protection of all Human Rights, Civil, Political, Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, including the Right to Development

Interactive Dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism

Oral Statement Delivered by Ms. Gayoon Baek on Behalf of
People’s Solidarity for Participatory Democracy (PSPD) and
MINBYUN-Lawyers for a Democratic Society

Thursday, 10 March 2016

Thank you, Mr. President. People’s Solidarity for Participatory Democracy (PSPD) makes this statement jointly with MINBYUN-Lawyers for a Democratic Society, on behalf of 52 South Korean NGOs.

We welcome the report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism (A/HRC/31/65) and share the view that countering violent extremism must focus on addressing the underlying causes, while more repressive, security-based approaches would have the reverse effect. Counter-terrorism and national security measures have tightened around the world, which has resulted in undue attempts to illegally or arbitrarily limit fundamental rights and freedoms.

The Counter-Terrorism Act enacted in the Republic of Korea on 2 March 2016, is a disturbing example. The Republic of Korea already has an established system to address “terrorism” spread over various laws and instruments, including the National Security Act, Aviation Safety and Security Act, and Act on Prohibiting Against the Financing of Acts of Threats and Expansion of Weapons of Mass Destruction against General Public. While the long-standing criticisms and concerns on the National Security Act continue and remain unaddressed, as it is viewed to be a law that restrict the work of human rights defenders, the new Counter-Terrorism Act will only serve to further violate the freedom of expression and right to privacy.

The broad and vague definition of “terrorism” and “terrorist” in the Act can result in arbitrary interpretation. According to article 2(3) of the Act, a "potential terrorist" includes anyone "who is reasonably believed to have prepared, conspired, propagated, or incited terrorism.”, without a clear reference on the process of assigning and delisting a potential terrorist. This is particularly concerning, considering that the Government has many times labeled peaceful protests as "acts of terror" and a lack of a minimum safeguard for de-listing.

In addition, the Act strengthens the authority of the National Intelligence Service (NIS) to an unprecedented level. Under the Act, once listed as a potential terrorist, the NIS can extensively collect personal information, including sensitive information and location data, wiretap, tail, and even apply financial sanctions. The NIS has been well known for violating human rights even before this power is given, such as the illegal intervention to the 2012 Presidential Election and false accusation against a DPRK defector of espionage in 2014. Considering that safeguards to manage and monitor such abuse of power are highly insufficient, we note with grave concern that this new legislation will be a tool to facilitate illegal intervention to people’s private life.

Therefore, we would like to ask the Special Rapporteur:
 - What kind of consultations should the State have with relevant stakeholders before enacting the Counter-terrorism Act?

Also, we would like to recommend the Government of the Republic of Korea:
 - Immediately repeal the Counter-Terrorism Act
 - Establish strong measures to prevent abuse of power by the Government body who is in charge of counter-terrorism

Thank you.

This statement is endorsed by below 52 South Korean NGOs:

 

Alliance for Enactment of Anti-Discrimination Act, Ansan Labor and Human Rights Center, Buddhism Human Rights Committee, Catholic Human Rights Committee, Cheongju Labor Human Rights Center, Cultural Action, DASAN Human Rights Center, Democratic Legal Studies Association, Disability and Human Rights in Action, Disabled People’s International Daegu, Geochang Peace and Human Rights Art Festival Commission, Gwangju Human Rights Activities Center, Human Rights Education Center 'Deul', Human Rights Education Center OnDa, Human Rights Movement Space 'Hwal', Human Rights Solidarity for New Society, Incheon Human Rights Film Festival, Joint Committee with Migrants in Korea, Korea HIV/AIDS Network of Solidarity KANOS, Korea Institute of Labor Safety and Health, Korean Confederation of Trade Unions, Korean Contingent Workers' Center, Korean Council for Democratic Martyr, Korean Gay Men's Groups 'Chingusai', Korean House for International Solidarity, Korean Progressive Network 'Jinbonet', Korean Sexual-Minority Culture and Rights Center, Labor Attorneys for Labor Rights, Lesbian Counseling Center in South Korea, Migrants Human Rights Solidarity, MINBYUN-Lawyers for a Democratic Society, Minkahyup Human Rights Group, Network of Accessible Environment for All, Palestine Peace and Solidarity in South Korea, Peace and Human Rights Center in Jeju, People's Solidarity for Participatory Democracy, People's Solidarity for Social Progress, Samsung Labor Watch, SARANGBANG Group for Human Rights, Seoul Human Rights Film Festival, Solidarity against Disability Discrimination, Solidarity for HIV/AIDS Human Rights Nanuri+, Solidarity for LGBT Human Rights of Korea, Solidarity for Peace & Human Rights, Supporters for the Health And Rights of People in the Semiconductor industry, SHARPS, The Committee to Support Imprisoned Workers, The National Council of Churches in Korea Human Rights Center, The Research Institute of the Differently Abled People Rights in Korea, Ulsan Solidarity for Human Rights, Women with Disabilities Empathy, Won Buddhism Human Rights Committee, World Without War

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 기업인권 : 정신영 (공익법센터 어필)

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

4. 국가보안법과 북한이탈주민보호센터 : 김기남 (민주사회를위한변호사모임)

제네바 현지에서의 만남들 : 홍승기 (유엔인권정책센터)

주최 : 유엔 자유권 심의 대응 한국 NGO 모임

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

보고대회 자료집 (자료집은 참여연대 국제연대위원회에서 구입도 가능합니다)

70 South Korean NGOs Concern on the ‘Sae-ma-ul Undong’ in the Draft Outcome Document of the 66th DPI/NGO Conference

10 May 2016

We, undersigned 70 South Korean NGOs, are deeply concerned about the draft outcome document of the 66th DPI/NGO Conference which describes the Sae-ma-ul Undong(SMU). In the draft document, it is mentioned that “Sae-ma-ul Undong (SMU) of Korea was an exemplary civic movement that had a significant impact in bridging the economic and infrastructural gap between rural and urban areas. In the 1970s it helped spark decades of national growth, contributing powerfully to the creation of a more equal and just society. We offer it as a model for poverty eradication and development in achieving Agenda 2030 in the context of global citizenship.”

The evaluation of SMU remains a controversial topic not only in South Korea, but also in the international community. Although there are claims that it helped modernization of rural areas, including by improving living conditions, some argue that it increased the dependence of rural areas on the government and that the rural economy has not significantly improved and remains fragile. Furthermore, regarding the “civic” nature of the movement, SMU was a forced mass mobilization project led by the state and a control mechanism to justify military dictatorship that emphasized monolithic nationalism and collectivism. Therefore, it is not fair to assess that the state-driven SMU contributed to “reducing economic and infrastructural gaps” or “creating a fairer and more equal society”. Above all, the description of SMU denies the massive social gaps and harmful consequences produced by the rapid industrialisation of Korean society in the 1970s, as well as the strong democratisation and labour movements that followed as a result.

In addition, we note with concern that such a 'positive' evaluation of SMU has been spreading systematically and that official development assistance (ODA) employing SMU has expanded extensively, since President Park Geun-hye - the daughter of the military strongman Park Jung-hee - took office. Currently, the government is actively carrying out a project to globalise SMU; however, we have serious doubts as to whether a case of development carried out under special circumstances, such as the military dictatorship in the Republic of Korea in the 1970s, can be uniformly applied to rural development projects in developing countries. The international community has already learned through experience that models of development that do not consider the political, social, cultural and historical specificities of the target communities are not sustainable. In effect, there exist criticisms by field specialists over the implementation process and effectiveness of ODA programs employing SMU, such as the lack of participation of the target community, preparations and planning according to the community's circumstances and needs, professionalism among field personnel, and sustainability. Therefore, it is of deep concern that such a model is being proposed as an exemplary model at an international level.

Therefore, we strongly urge that this paragraph be deleted from the draft outcome document, as it is based on biased and unilateral views.

For further details or media inquiry, please contact Ms. Gayoon Baek (Coordinator, People’s Solidarity for Participatory Democracy): [email protected], +82 2 723 5051

* This statement is endorsed by below 70 South Korean NGOs
Catholic Human Rights Committee, Dasan human rights center, Democratic Legal Studies Association, Disability and Human Rights in Action, Gonggam Human Rights Law Foundation, Human Rights Center 'Saram', Human Rights Movement Space 'Hwal', Human Rights Education 'OnDa', Jeju Peace Human Rights Center, Korean Confederation of Trade Unions, Korean House for International Solidarity, Korean Lawyers for Public Interest and Human Rights, "Korean Networks of Human Rights Groups (42 NGOs: Alliance for Enactment of Anti-Discrimination Act, Ansan Labor and Human Rights Center, Buddhism Human Rights Committee, Catholic Human Rights Committee, Cheongju Labor Human Rights Center, Cultural Action, DASAN Human Rights Center, Democratic Legal Studies Association, Disability and Human Rights in Action, Disabled People’s International Daegu, Geochang Peace and Human Rights Art Festival Commission, Gwangju Human Rights Acitivites Center, Human Rights Education Center 'Deul', Human Rights Solidarity for New Society, Joint Committee with Migrants in Korea, Korea HIV/AIDS Network of Solidarity KANOS, Korean Coalition for Abolishment of Insecurity Employment, Korean Contingent Workers' Center, Korean Council for Democratic Martyr, Korean Gay Men's Groups 'Chingusai', Korean House for International Solidarity, Korean Progressive Network 'Jinbonet', Korean Sexual-Minority Culture and Rights Center, Labor Attorneys for Labor Rights, Migrants Human Rights Solidarity, MINBYUN-Lawyers for a Democratic Society, Minkahyup Human Rights Group, Network of Accessible Environment for All, People's Solidarity for Social Progress, Samsung Labor Watch, SARANGBANG Group for Human Rights, Seoul Human Rights Film Festival, Solidarity against Disability Discrimination, Solidarity for HIV/AIDS Human Rights Nanuri+, Solidarity for LGBT Human Rights of Korea, Solidarity for Peace & Human Rights, The Committee to Support Imprisoned Workers, The National Council of Churches in Korea Human Rights Center, The Research Institute of the Differently Abled People Rights in Korea, Ulsan Solidarity for Human Rights, Won Buddhism Human Rights Committee, World Without War, Korean Progressive Network 'Jinbonet', MINBYUN - Lawyers for a Democratic Society, ODA Watch, People's Solidarity for Participatory Democracy, Rainbow Action Against Sexual-Minority Discrimination (25 NGOs: Chingusai – Korean Gay Men’s Human Rights Group, Christian Solidarity for a World without Discrimination, Collective for Sexual Minority Cultures PINKS, Daegu Queer Cultural Festival, GongGam Human Rights Law Foundation, Minority Rights Committee of the Green Party, Jogye Order Social Labour Committee, Korea Queer Culture Festival Organizing Committee, Korean Lawyers for Public Interest and Human Rights(KLPH), Korean lesbian community radio group, Lezpa, "Korean Sexual-Minority Culture and Riughts Center(KSCRC), Labor Party, Sexual Politics Committee, "Lesbian Community Group(Gruteogi)", Lesbian Counseling Center in South Korea, Lesbian Human Rights Group ‘Byunnal’ of Ewha Womans University, "LGBTAIQ Crossing the damn world (It means Totally Queer)", "LGBTQ Student Alliance of Korea(QUV)", Network for Glocal Activism, Rainbow Solidarity for LGBT Human Rights of Daegu, Sexual Minority Committee of the Justice Party, "Sinnaneuncenter: LGBT Culture", Arts & Human Rights Center, Solidarity for HIV/AIDS Human Rights Nanuri+, Solidarity for LGBT Human Rights of Korea, "The Korean Society of Law and Policy on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity(SOGILAW)", "Unninetwork)", SARANGBANG Group for Human Rights, Seoul Human Rights Film Festival, Solidarity Against Disability Discrimination