While the country faced two unexpected deaths of former presidents this year, which have been commemorated nationwide, the deaths of five men in the process of forcible dispersal by the police which took place in January 20 in Youngsan-4ga, Seoul have been forgotten by the people and are no longer discussed by the media due to the intentional inaction of the government as well as police attacks against the people who wished to commemorate these deaths. However, what is even sadder than failing to remember this incident is that the fact that no institutional review of the decline in the rule of law has drawn the attention of the people.
After the incident took place, several demonstrators were prosecuted and detained while the details about the incident have continued to be concealed. Scant details have been provided even to the families who lost their loved ones. Despite the fact that the prosecutor ignored the court order to allow the defence lawyers access to the investigation report (To see more AHRC-STM-137-2009), this flaw has not been addressed. The defence lawyers have sought remedies through existing criminal procedures asking for; the suspension of the court proceedings until the investigation report is available; for the court to issue warrants of search and confiscation against the prosecutor’s office; challenging the court to change judges and bringing it to the Constitutional Court for review. However, all these were rejected.
While the flaw in the criminal procedures has remained unsolved, the case was reopened on August 20 and at the trial, the defence lawyers again asked for access to the investigation report. However, the court prohibited them from raising the matter again. When the defence lawyer argued that they could no longer provide legal advice without access to the report, the court asked them to leave the court room. Likewise, their request for the intervention of the court with regard to the report was again rejected. The case was finally postponed on September 1 and the defence lawyer resigned, appealing for an unjust trial. On September 1, the accused asked for the court to delay the court proceedings since there were no longer defence lawyers, the court refused this saying that they would be assigned counsel. The court also said that the abuse of the right of defence can no longer be accepted. How then can this be called a fair trial? How can it be said with the abuse of the right of defence under the circumstances no action has been taken against the prosecutor’s office that has ignored the very court order and made various attacks by way of institutional frame?
As well as the attack in the institutionalised frame but also in discouraging people to gather and commemorate the incident. After January, family members in support of rights groups, religious groups and individuals have continued to have religious ceremonies asking for access to the investigation report. They submitted an application for demonstration in accordance with the Act on Assembly and Demonstration, but the police have never allowed them to proceed. A group of supporters performed marching and bowing with every fourth step, which was declared as a citizen’s legitimate way of expression by the Supreme Court but the police again accused the people gathered of illegal assembly and demonstrating and arrested 19 people on August 29 and 16 people including one family member whose husband died when the incident occurred and whose son is one of the accused of the incident on August 31.
The message that the case is clearly sending to the people is not the fact that five men died in the process of forcible dispersal but, rather discouraging the people to talk about anything that might be against the government’s policy. And should they do so the government does not care at all. In addition to this, if there is any protest or demonstration, the so-called ‘law’ is used to encourage people not to exercise their rights stipulated both in the constitution and international human rights norms and standards and deprive them from exercising them through arrest and prosecution while, at the same time, the government itself ignores the very ‘law’.
This repeated ignorance over the court’s decision is, however, not new but has lasted without institutional scrutiny or review. It is a failure. It allowed several institutions such as the police, prosecutor, board of audit and inspection, and national tax service to be mobilised in order to remove a high profile person from his position. Institutions relating to security, such as the Defense Security Command, National Information Services and Security Bureau, are now allowed to illegally monitor, wiretap and inspect people through communication systems including the internet.
The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) is alarmed at these series of attacks by institutions and the systematic flaws that have deprived people of fair trial. The AHRC will closely follow this, in particular the trial of Youngsan together with rights groups in order to expose the flaws existing in the justice system for adequate review to ensure fair trial. The AHRC takes this opportunity to draw attention to the fact that if there is no institutional review, the same flaws will never be addressed under any circumstances, whoever comes into power and therefore the people suffering from these flaws will continue to do so.
