The National Human Rights Commission of Korea recommends police agencies to restrict use of force and violence at protest sites, and engage in human rights training
The National Human Rights Commission (NHRCK) made a recommendation recently requiring “A” Provincial Police Agency to limit the volume and force of police officers, to admonish the on-site commanders for using force against civilians and to require police captains to complete training on human rights and proper use of police devices. This recommendation was a direct response to a complaint filed against “A” Provincial Police Agency for their excessive dispatch of police officers, forceful removal of protestors and other excessive use of force at a bona fide protest site, including stone throwing. The Commission found that these actions infringed upon the protestors’ basic right to freedom of assembly and personal safety.
The complainant, a 35-year-old male representative of the “B” Construction Labor Union, filed a complaint with the Commission on June 15, 2006, stating that the labor union received official permission to hold a demonstration in front of “C” Police Station on June 12, 2006. The demonstration was to protest against the arrest and detention of the “B” Construction Labor Union’s former deputy chairman—known as “D”—by the “C” Police Station. Despite the approval, over 2,000 police officers were dispatched to break up the demonstration. The complaint also indicated that the protestors from the labor union held a peaceful assembly on the roadside, since the police had occupied their designated site. Suddenly—according to the complaint— auxiliary police launched tear gas into the crowd and began beating protestors with batons, shields, and stones in the face and other body parts. From these events, 43 protestors suffered severe and minor injuries including broken noses and cheekbones.
The respondents, the “A” Provincial Police Agency and officers, contended that the dispatch of a large force of officers was necessary to prevent possible occupation of the police station by the protestors. The respondents asserted that this was a minimum necessary measure and that the police neither obstructed the assembly itself, nor resorted to violent treatment of the protestors. Furthermore, the respondents maintained that they had opened the sidewalks and two one-way lane roads for the demonstration, which they alleged was sufficient for the size of the demonstration.
Upon investigation, the Commission came to several conclusions and subsequent recommendations.
1. Obstruction of Assembly
Since the demonstration was scheduled to occur in the vicinity of “C” Police Station, where “D” was being detained, the Commission found it legitimate to dispatch officers to prevent possible occupation of the police station. The Commission confirmed that the 850 labor union demonstrators did not engage in illegal protesting or demonstration, and did not commit any violent acts to agitate the police officers. Additionally, the respondents exercised a force beyond a reasonable minimum by dispatching 1,000 police officers to the site. The Commission also determined that the restriction of protest site was an act outside of police officers’ jurisdiction, which antagonized protestors by shortening the buffer zone between the protestors and the police. These findings lead the Commission to conclude that the respondents were negligent in adhering to Article 1 (Purpose) and Article 3 (Prohibition of Obstruction) of the Assembly and Demonstration Act, which guarantees legal assembly and demonstration and security from obstruction, and Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to freedom of assembly.
2. Excessive Use of Violence and Force
The Commission recognizes the respondent’s need to forcefully disperse the protestors, as it has confirmed that two police officers and four auxiliary police officers were taken by the protestors as ransom for the release of “D.” The Commission also confirmed that the respondents requested protestors to conclude the demonstration on several occasions, via loud speakers on police vehicles, and also informed protestors of a voluntary dispersion order on three occasions. This behavior follows due process, as outlined in applicable laws, in the judgment of the Commission.
Despite this, the auxiliary policemen associated with the 4 auxiliary policemen held by the protestors sprayed many seated union members with fire distinguishers, swung their batons at the crowd like baseball bats and hit the protestors with police shields. A victim known as “E” suffered a broken nose, cheek bone and broken teeth after being beaten in the face by a police baton. Of the 43 victims, 21 suffered injuries to vulnerable spots on their head, including ears, cheekbones, front teeth, nose, crown, and eyes. It has been confirmed that a significant number of the union members that were seriously injured were hospitalized and underwent operations. Additionally, some auxiliary policemen threw sidewalk blocks toward fleeing protestors. Victim “F,” who was escaping across the center line of the two-lane highway, was hit by a block thrown by an auxiliary policemen, breaking the upper and lower bones of his right eye socket and his cheekbone, which required four weeks of hospitalization.
The Commission does not see these violent actions as justified on the part of the auxiliary police officers. Stone throwing is an illegal and unreasonable act, as stones are not legal tools for police officers to employ in the line of duty. This is clearly outlined in the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers. Such behavior from the respondents violated regulations set forth in the Principles on Use of Police Weaponry and the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers. Finally, these acts were deemed to have infringed on the demonstrators’ right to personal safety, as stipulated in Article 12 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea.
The Commission has recommended that the respondent promptly admonish the commanders in charge at the demonstration site and those responsible for the obstruction of peace, stone throwing and other agents that employed excessive violence against the demonstrators. The Commission further recommended that job training be issued for mid-level commanders—including auxiliary police—to ensure proper instruction on the ethical use of police weaponry. This recommendation is in accordance with Article 44(1)1 of the National Human Rights Commission of Korea Act.
The National Human Rights Commission of Korea was established in 2001 to promote human rights education and defend those who have experienced discrimination, or have had a right violated, in Korea. The Commission offers counseling, full investigation and protection for citizens, along with educational initiatives for organizations.
