유엔특별보고관에게 국정원의 경력판사 신원조사 관련 진정서 전달
6/29, 참여연대는 민주사회를위한변호사모임(민변)과 공동으로 '판사와 변호사에 대한 독립에 관한 UN특별보고관'에게 국가정보원의 경력판사 신원조사에 대한 진정서(Letter of Allegation)를 제출했습니다.
참여연대와 민변은 진정서에서 국가정보원이 법관 임용 과정에서 신원조사를 담당하는 것은 법관의 독립을 명시한 대한민국 헌법 뿐 아니라 유엔의 시민적,정치적권리에 관한 국제협약(International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, ICCPR), 세계인권선언(Universal Declaraion of Human Rights, UDHR)등 국제적 규정과도 부합하지 않다는 점을 강조했습니다.
또한 "국가보안을 위하여 국가에 대한 충성심·성실성 및 신뢰성을 조사"한다는 국가정보원의 신원조사 목적은 매우 자의적으로 해석될 수 있어, 이번 논란에서 드러난 것 처럼 세월호 사건이나 노조 활동 등 지원자들의 양심과 정치적 견해를 묻는 식으로 오용되어, 결국 법관 임용에서 차별이 발생할 가능성이 크다고 비판했습니다.
참여연대와 민변은 UN특별보고관에게 △한국에서 발생한 최근 법관 임명 과정에서 발생한 상황과 향후 국가정보원의 법관 인사 개입에 주목할 것, △ 대법원이 법관 지원자에 대한 필요한 신원조사를 책임지고 수행하도록 대법원에 권고할 것, △정부가 국가정보원이 신원조사를 담당하게끔 하는 관련 규정을 개정하고, 법관의 독립을 보장할 수 있는 적절한 조치를 취하도록 정부에 권고할 것, △한국에 공식방문 해 판사와 변호사에 대한 독립이 보장되고 있는 지 여부를 더 조사할 것을 요청했습니다.
참여연대는 향후 특별보고관이 판단하여 해당 진정서에 대한 사실관계 확인을 정부에 요청했을 시, 정부가 내 놓은 답변을 검토하고 판단해 추가 대응할 계획입니다.
* 유엔 특별보고관 진정제도 (Letter of Allegation) 절차
: 유엔 특별보고관에 진정서가 접수되면, 유엔 특별보고관이 진정서에 대한 신뢰성 여부를 확인합니다. 이후, 신뢰할만한 정보라 판단되면 해당 정부에 관련 사안에 대한 질의(사실관계, 정부의 입장 및 의견 등)를 하고, 해당 정부에 답변을 요구합니다. 그리고 향후 개입(1. 연례보고서에 기재, 2. 의견표명, 3. 해당사항 조사)여부를 결정합니다.
<진정서>
The Letter of Allegation to the Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers
1. Information concerning the allegation
The Authors
Name People’s Solidarity for Participatory Democracy
/ MINBYUN-Lawyers for a Democratic Society
Nationality Republic of Korea
The Victim
The Perpetrator Republic of Korea (ROK)
Representation
Name MINBYUN-Lawyers for a Democratic Society
Address 34 Banpodaero 30gil # Sin-jeong B/D 5F
Seocho-gu Seoul 137-070
Republic of Korea Email: [email protected]
2. Background
On 26 May 2015, Seoul Broadcasting System(SBS) broadcasted that the Supreme Court has, at least for two years, provided with personal details of prospective career judges to the National Intelligence Service (hereinafter “NIS) and the NIS also secretly had interviews with the prospective career judges that were asked regarding their opinion on the politically sensitive issues like the Sewol Ferry incident and the relations between labor and capital, so that the NIS can perform a background check on the candidates. After the controversial report, the National Court Administration made a statement that the Court vetted a background check by referring it to the NIS of which details were settled by the NIS in accordance with the Provision on Security Work.
Article 33 (background check) of The Provision on Security Work states that the NIS performs a background check to investigate into loyalty to country, dedication, and trustworthiness. Under the Article 56 of the Enforcement Rule of the Provision on Security Work, targets of the background check include newly appointed prospect judges. Article 3(2) of the National Intelligence Service Act stipulates that any necessary matters for duties of the NIS and the scope of the planning and coordination regarding the duties, and matters on target institutions and procedure shall be provided for by Presidential Decree, namely the Provision on Security Work.
3. Relevant laws and alleged violations
The appointment of the legal profession, especially judges and prosecutors must be made as fair as possible. According to the Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (hereinafter “ICCPR”) and Article 10 and 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, competent, independent and impartial tribunals shall be established by law.
In addition, international standards prohibit the government from interfering with the legal professionals’ exercise of freedom of expression, association and assembly. Article 19 of ICCPR and Article 8 of the Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary (hereinafter “Principles”) recognize that ‘everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression. And Article 10 of the Principles states that ‘there shall be no discrimination against a person on the grounds of race, colour, sex, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or status’.
Moreover, the Constitution of the Republic of Korea (hereinafter “Constitution”), the constitutional document providing multiple protection to its citizen seems to protect the independence of the Judiciary under Article 103 stating that “judges shall rule independently according to their conscience and in conformity with the Constitution and laws”.
However, according to the media report, the candidates of career judges were questioned regarding their personal lives in detail, and political opinion on current issues at the time of the interview check made by the NIS. It is noteworthy that in 2013 and 2014, the Courts had investigated into the NIS’s intervention in the 2012 presidential election for allegedly conducting an online campaign to help then-presidential candidate Park win the election.
With this regard, it is submitted that the background check of the National Intelligence Service on prospect career judges, and the existence of regulations enabling the NIS to conduct such checks amount to the violation of international standards, and the Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary. The investigations into “loyalty to the country, dedication, and trustworthiness” are so arbitrary in meaning that it is highly likely to be misused to question people on their conscience and political opinions which may lead to the discriminatory appointment of judges.
4. Conclusion
Therefore, it is requested that Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers to:
• pay attention to the current situation of the Republic of Korea regarding the appointment of judges and the possible further intervention by the Executive to the appointment of judges and prosecutors.
• recommend the Supreme Court of Korea to take a responsibility to carry out a necessary background check of prospective judges.
• recommend the government of the Republic of Korea to revise the relevant provisions enabling the NIS to conduct a background check of possible candidates for judges, and to take appropriate measures to ensure the independence of the Judiciary
• request an official visit to the Republic of Korea to conduct further investigation on whether the independence of judges and lawyers is fully secured and promoted.
시민들의 의견
댓글 달기