The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) is concerned about the serious degradation of the National Human Rights Commission of Korea (NHRCK)’s internal regulations and systems, which increasingly threaten the institution’s ability to function in favour of human rights after the appointment of the chairperson and new standing commissioner of the NHRCK by ignoring the NHRCK Act as well as the Paris Principles.
It is reported that Mr. Hyun Byung-Chul, the chairperson of the NHRCK together with some non-standing commissioners, proposed a draft amendment to the NHRCK’s managerial regulations to its Plenary Committee. In protest, two standing commissioners, Mr. Yu Nam-Young and Ms. Mun Kyung-Ran, left a meeting and resigned soon afterwards, on November 1. Mr. Cho Kuk, a non-standing commissioner then also resigned on November 10. 61 out of the 160 members of various committees including the specialised committee, the advisory organ and the conciliation committee appointed by the NHRCK returned their appointment letters and resigned on November 15.
According to the current managerial regulations, the standing committee considers and deliberates on matters relating to human rights, expresses opinions and makes recommendations on urgent matters and decides on whether to refer matters to the plenary committee. If three standing commissioners agree, the NHRCK shall make a recommendation on a particular issue without intervention or influence from either chairperson, who is appointed by the President, or non-standing commissioners. At the time of this regulation in 2006, the standing commissioners were appointed among people who had good knowledge on human rights according to the NHRCK Act. However, the essence of the draft amendment is that it gives power to the chairperson to decide whether or not the NHRCK will express opinions or make recommendations and restricts the power of the standing committee.
In resigning, Mr. Yu explained his decision based on problems relating to the institution’s internal management, including:
- A statement denying the independence of the NHRCK by the chairperson to the National Assembly;
- The Chairperson’s unjust denial of a request to holding temporary plenary committee and standing committee under article 5(2) of the managerial regulations;
- The dismissal of staff on the request of the Ministry of Public Administration and Security;
- The Chairperson’s unilateral suspension of a meeting discussing the submission of the NHRCK’s opinion on the case of Youngsan, and the resignation of staff who helped to prepare the draft of the opinion;
- The Chairperson’s submission to members of parliaments of an opinion about a matter which the plenary committee had been discussing , without a resolution by the committee, making his opinion appear to be the NHRCK’s official opinion, in February 2010;
- When three standing commissioners took up the matter relating to No. 5 above, they were instead subjected to an investigation;
- Plenary committee’s decision that a standing commissioner is unable to submit a matter to the standing committee.
It is also reported that the NHRCK has kept silent on sensitive human rights violations cases or issues that are directly related to the current government, such as: the case of Mr. Park Won-Soon, the prosecution’s investigation into the report about mad cow disease by the Munwha Broadcasting Corporation’s programme, PD Notebook; a formal request on the constitutionality of the Act on Assembly and Demonstration concerning night time assembly; the landmark Minerva case; and the surveillance by the government of civilians, including UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of expression, Mr. Frank La Rue, during his official mission to South Korea in May 2010. While the chairperson of the NHRCK met Mr. La Rue, he prohibited standing commissioners from doing so. Concerns about the cases above were also found at his findings after his mission to the South Korea.
In this context, the attempt to amend the managerial regulations is being seen as an attempt by the Chairperson to exert authority and nullify the standing committee. The proposed amendment is seen as being a move by the chairperson of the NHRCK and some commissioners recommended by the ruling party to be able to block issues they do not want to speak about from being submitted for discussion. Under the amended regulations, the NHRCK’s Chairperson will have excessive power concerning decision making relating to the consideration of human rights matters. While the standing committee has often made recommendations about the government’s policy and laws concerning sensitive issues, there are concerns that the plenary committee is now unlikely to do so.
In the meantime, a new standing commissioner was appointed by President Lee Myung-Bak, from an organisation that supports government policy and is linked to the ruling party on November 11. Statements and press releases issued by this organisation called “Lawyers for citizens” are of concern, as they show no regard for recommendations or views made by international human rights bodies.
Based on the findings above, the AHRC has no choice but to believe that all these had begun with the violation of domestic law as well as the absence of selection process of commissioners. We have already pointed out the ignorance of NHRCK Act in the process of appointment procedure in our earlier letter to the chairperson of the International Coordinating Committee to the National Institutions for Human Rights in July 31, 2009. Regretfully the government of the South Korea has so far failed to address this problem and ignored once again by appointing a new commissioner in the same way as the chairperson was appointed by the President.
The AHRC strongly condemns any attempts to nullify the power and function of the NHRCK and together with rights groups urges the government of the South Korea to abide by the domestic law as well as establish appropriate mechanisms in the procedure of appointment to check the involvement in protecting and promoting human rights among those who are recommended or appointed to be commissioners. The current appointment process must be suspended until a proper monitoring body of selection process is set up.
Without such action, the NHRCK is becoming completely incapable of defending human rights or fulfilling its mandate, and will instead become another appendage of government that will only function to praise the government locally and internationally. It will only act on depending on the taste of whoever comes into power.
