The National Human Rights Commission concluded a 4-month investigation consisting of interviews and surveys on 50 people who were the targets of security surveillance, starting last October. Minkahyup Human Rights Group conducted the investigation on behalf of the Commission as a part of their human rights investigation program.
This investigation was significant because it was the first of its kind to highlight the violations of human rights and quality of life of those targeted for surveillance. The major points of investigation of violations of human rights included:
? * Factors for being targeted for security surveillance
? * The decision-making process for the practice of security surveillance
? * Renewal process for security surveillance
? * Specific practices of security surveillance
? * Status of petitions to stop surveillance
? * The psychological affect of security surveillance
The investigation included interviews with a total of 50 people; 35 persons currently under surveillance, 5 exempted from surveillance, 2 persons qualified for surveillance, and 8 persons who are no longer under surveillance. The results of the investigation are as follows:
1. It was found that people currently under surveillance were subject to visits by police, phone calls, etc, even before they were judged to be “persons qualified for surveillance,” making this a violation of human rights. The 50 people surveyed suffered from police harassment because they were told to “report their release from prison” right after their release. Families of prisoners reported harassment and threats by police who would visit often and call, saying, “they [ex-prisoners] can be imprisoned again,” inciting fear. Moreover, there were five cases of urgent arrest and indictment for not reporting release from prison.
However, 17 of those interviewed were not told they were subject to security surveillance or that they had a duty to report their release, yet they were threatened or harassed by the police. Therefore, it can be concluded that due process was not followed. In addition, due to excessive surveillance even after reporting their release, all 50 interviewees suffered psychological damage and instability. Even before they were deemed persons qualified for surveillance, some interviewees were forbidden to attend rallies or large group gatherings, or were interrogated about their personal life by being asked questions about whom they met.
2. The NHRC found that security surveillance is inflicted on those who are deemed to be “in danger of committing a crime again,” and the standards used to decide who is “in danger” violates freedom of conscience, expression, right to privacy and legality. Also, there were cases of social environment becoming a reason for being deemed “in danger,” as well as double punishment for the same crime. The following are specific case examples derived from prosecution claims and security surveillance review committee’s resolutions.
First, 13 cases, or 26%, appeared to be violations of freedom of conscience. Secondly, 26 cases or 52% were interpreted as violations of freedom of expression. Thirdly, 9 cases or 13% were seen as double punishment. Fourthly, 18 cases or 36% were probably violations to freedom of privacy. Fifthly, 3 cases or 6% seemed to restrict legal rights. In addition, 9 cases of surveillance, or 18%, were decided because of a problematic social environment (for example, a family member resided in North Korea or the person’s current residence was located in a place ideal for spy activity). Finally, 27 cases or 54% were decided arbitrarily.
3. Those who are under surveillance must regularly report moving residence and travel, among other movements, and this is a violation of freedom of conscience, freedom to move residence, freedom to travel, and a wide range of violations of freedom of privacy.
4. The Security Surveillance Act does not allow requests for temporary suspension of execution, which results in unjust practices of surveillance. Eight of the interviewees who filed suits for suspension of surveillance, continued to be subject to surveillance and police observation, as well as submit reports of movement, until the final decision was made by the courts. In April 2001, the Constitutional Court ruled that Article 24 of the Security Surveillance Act (prohibits temporary suspension of execution) was unconstitutional. However, the practice continues.
5. The results of the investigation show that even though the stated goal of the Security Surveillance Act is to “prevent recurrence of crimes and promotes rehabilitation of convicts into society,” the reality is the law promotes self-censorship of those subject to surveillance or causes problems with their social relationships, making it difficult for them to re-enter society. Those subject to surveillance pointed out this practice is a state-sponsored interference into their personal lives.
6. Although the Constitutional Court ruled that the Security Surveillance Act itself was constitutional, the results of the investigation clearly show that the law and its practice violate a wide range of human rights of those who are subject to security surveillance.
