‘Arrests Without Warrant’ Frequent, ‘Violence During Investigation’ Continues Shows Investigative Research of Victims of Human Rights Violations Who Were Criminal Suspects by the Korean Institute of Criminology
Six-month survey of 720 detainees in 12 detention centers and 360 police officers across the nation
The National Human Rights Commission requested the Korean Institute of Criminology conduct an investigative research of victims of human rights violations who were criminal suspects during criminal investigation procedure, as a 2002 human rights violation research program. This research surveyed 720 detainees in 12 detention facilities; 8 detention centers in Seoul, Youngdeungpo, Seongdong, Incheon, Suweon, Busan, Daegu, Ulsan, and 3 prisons in Jeonju, Gwangju, Uijeongbu, and 1 detention branch in Cheonan (60 detainees in each detention facility were surveyed, and including 122 female detainees, about 10 from each facility).
There are continuing claims that the human rights of criminal suspects are frequently violated during investigation. However, it has been difficult to estimate the number of criminal suspects who have had their human rights violated during investigative procedures because there has been little research. The NHRC conducted research putting stress on the following areas; △ notification of suspect"s rights △ human rights violations related to arrest △ human rights violation during investigation process △ right to meet a lawyer △ protection of social minorities such as women and △ human rights consciousness of police officers. The results of the research can be used as basic material for improving human rights of suspects and related laws. The results are as follows;
1. Notification of suspect"s rights
According to current criminal procedure laws, when arresting or detaining a suspect, it is required to notify the person of the alleged crime committed, his/her rights, and give the suspect a chance to defend themselves. However, the research results showed that the notification of rights varied for different rights, and many times, notification of rights was made only for the sake of formality.
The rate of showing warrants and notifying suspects of their rights varied according to case. The rate of notification of suspect"s rights (right to appoint an attorney and right to remain silent, etc) was highest at 84.2%, showing that the Miranda principle is being applied after its introduction in 1987. The rates of notification of the reason of arrest and alleged crime, and notification of the right to have a trial for disclosure of grounds for detention warrant were 76.3% and 73.4% respectively, which show they are upheld relatively well.
Meanwhile, 66.7% of suspects who were arrested or detained were not told the identity of the person arrested them. Warrants were shown to only 50.7% of suspects who were arrested or detained.
Moreover, it was disclosed that not many people were aware of the right to be notified of their rights. Of the 583 people who answered they were informed of their rights, only 210 (36.0%) said "they fully understood," 35% said "they understood a little," 20.1% said "it was a little difficult to understand," and 8.9% said "they did not understand at all."
2. Human rights violations related to arrest
1) Emergency arrest
According to the current criminal law, arrests must be based on warrants and the use of emergency warrants should be limited. However, in real investigation procedures, emergency arrests are made frequently and there is a high concern of human rights violation in the process. The research showed that emergency arrests were conducted on 289 people (56.2%), which marked the most frequent arrest type.
2) Injury
Out of 515 suspects, 61 (11.8%) responded that they were injured during arrest by police or prosecution officers. Meanwhile, when asked the question, "after injury, did you receive medical treatment," a surprising 88.5% said they "did not receive medical treatment."
3) Voluntary agreement to go to a police station with a law enforcement official
Of 692 surveyed suspects, 132 or 19.1% were arrested after they were "voluntarily" taken or accompanied by law enforcement, and 75.0% of them answered they agreed, whereas 25.0% said they "refused to go but were taken into custody by force."
When asked if police officers identified themselves, 20 people or 15.2% answered no. To the question "did you hear the reason and purpose of voluntary movement," 89 people or 67.4% said they did not, which confirmed the fact that asking to go into voluntary custody was overused in actual investigation.
4) Excessive body search
Three hundred nine people or 44.7% of the suspects experienced excessive body searches (strip searches) during arrest and detention. Another 158 (51.1%) answered they "were not given gowns and experienced naked body search," 23.0% said "there was physical contact, such as being touched with the hands of police officers," and 4.2% said they were "verbally abused by police officers."
3. Human rights violations during investigation
1) Verbal abuse and physical violence
Out of the total survey respondents, 50.1% were "verbally abused by police, " 26.1% were "threatened," and 19.5% were "forced to give a false confession through use of threats, physical violence, torture or sexual violence."
2) Physical rights violation
Out of 615 people surveyed, 74 (12%) who were investigated by police answered "they were subject to physical violence from police," and 15(2.4%) said "they were injured."
4. Violation of the right to meet a lawyer
Out of the 539 suspects who had appointed lawyers, 5.0% of them answered "requests to meet or contact a lawyer was refused."
"Under investigation" was the most frequent reason for refusal, which accounted for 70.4%. Other reasons include "request would deter investigation," and "allowed time to meet lawyer elapsed."
5. Violation of medical rights
Of 692 surveyed people, 171(24.7%) answered they "got sick after arrest." Meanwhile, it was disclosed that most of these respondents had suffered illness before the time of arrest (including detention). The percentage of suspects who answered "contracted disease after arrest(including detention) was 26.9%.
Related to appropriate medical treatment, only 27.5% answered "received appropriate medical treatment," whereas 72.5% marked "did not receive proper medical treatment."
6. Lack of protection for social minorities
Among 122 female suspects, 73 or 60% stated they experienced menstruation during arrest or investigation. "It was uncomfortable to ask male investigative officers for sanitary napkins," answered 64.4% of them, and 27.4% confessed "it was hard because I had to borrow a pad from other female suspects in the same confinement cell." Moreover, 21.9% of female suspects stated they had a hard time using the toilet related to menstruation.
7. Human rights consciousness of police officers
While conducting this survey, the NHRC also conducted a human rights consciousness survey on 360 assistant inspectors who were undergoing training at the Police Comprehensive Academy. The results showed that 82.3% of the surveyed police officers answered "guaranteeing criminals" human rights and solving crimes cannot coexist," and 87.5% expressed "when necessary for investigation, the rights of criminals need to be limited."
However, the surveyed officers revealed a high level of consciousness for the necessity of suspects" human rights protection. A high number, 86.9%, answered "you must notify of the right to trial for verification of detention warrant," and 93.3% agreed that "you must notify the reason of arrest or detention to a suspect." Moreover, 95.6% said "a chance to defend themselves must be given to a suspect," and 92.4% answered "a suspect"s family must be notified of the reason, time and location of the suspect"s arrest or detention."
