NHRC Submits Written Opinion on Ministry of Justice Draft Bill to Amend the Immigration Control Act
The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) has submitted to the Ministry of Justice (MOJ) a written opinion regarding the bill that the MOJ is putting before the Ministry of Legislation to amend the Immigration Control Act. In the bill to amend the Immigration Control Act (hereafter, Immigration Bill), the MOJ promotes abrogating the current fingerprinting system in favor of fingerprinting only a subset composed of “targeted registered aliens.” The NHRC has taken the position that, “though we welcome the policy direction of ending the fingerprinting of all registered aliens in favor of reducing the numbers of those fingerprinted, since there is still much controversy as to whether the practice of fingerprinting itself constitutes a human rights violation, the law must be careful to clearly define who ‘targeted’ persons would be.”
The NHRC written opinion points out: “according to the principles of lawmaking for a country where the rule of law prevails, when laws restrict basic rights, a clear principle must be operating such that possible offenders can understand and predict what constitutes culpability, and so as to prevent and counter the possibility of arbitrary or discriminatory actions on the part of those enforcing the law; however, the Immigration Bill, as it stands, does not contain a clear definition of whom those to be fingerprinted are.”
Other parts of the written opinion comment on wording. First, the part of the bill that treats “people who could be investigated or otherwise dealt with for violating this law (article 38: clause 1: paragraph 2 of the draft bill)” is neither finite nor concrete in specification and should thus be deleted. Instead, violators of the law should be specified with the clearer wording that follows, “persons who have received deportation orders as persons targeted for deportation (article 46).” Second, the portion of the bill that talks about “persons whose real identity is uncertain (article 38: clause 1: paragraph 3)” must either specify the criteria and scope (for doubting a person’s identity) concretely in the enforcement decree or regulation of the law, or be deleted. Last, the phrase “persons who are recognized to especially require fingerprinting for the benefit or safety of the Republic of Korea or other reasons (article 38: clause 1: paragraph 3)” should be deleted if it reflects the same persons referred to in article 46 to avoid double regulations.
On the one hand, the practice of fingerprinting in our society is a controversial human rights issue because of the possibility that it violates personal dignity, value and the pursuit of happiness, the right to personal liberty and integrity of the body, and the right to privacy; however, on the other hand, the NHRC has not closed the debate by coming down with a formal opinion on this issue. Thus, the NHRC has restricted its comments on the Immigration Bill only to the sections relating to provisions governing the fingerprinting of alien residents.
