Request for an Investigation into Acts of Violence and an Examination of Safety of Police Apparatus, including Tear Gas
October 27- The NHRCK has decided to make the following recommendations concerning human rights violations by police officers during a sit-in strike by labor union members of Ssangyong Motors (May 21, 2009 - August 6, 2009).
1. Recommendation to the Commissioner of the Gyeonggi Provincial Police Agency to make sure that the human rights of people conducting a sit-in strike are not violated by prohibitions on the taking-in of water, food, and medicine, by the blocking of fire hydrants, and by the group violence of observers, as well as to establish measures for prevention of recurrences.
2. Recommendation to the Commissioner General of the National Police Agency to immediately examine and confirm the safety of police apparatus where there is controversy as to its harmfulness to the human body and to exercise restraint in the use of related apparatus until such safety is established.
3. Request to the Prosecutor General to investigate accusations of riot police violence and harsh treatment occurring on August 5, 2009.
Members of the Ssangyong Motors labor union and their families filed a total of 55 complaints with the NHRCK related to human rights violations by police during the sit-in strike, and the NHRCK made recommendations on July 30 and August 5 to allow the taking-in of water and medicine, to prohibit the use of harmful apparatus during riot control, and to take emergency relief measures in order to ensure the physical safety of the people on strike and police officers.
In evaluating these cases, the NHRCK took into consideration the fact that police exercised self-restraint for approximately 70 days out of concern for the large-scale disaster that could result from forceful suppression.
The results of the NHRCK’s investigation are as follows:
1. The NHRCK determined that even if the sit-in strike by union members is considered an illegal occupation, acts such as blocking the delivery of water, food and medicine, and the coming and going of medical practitioners, all of which are essential to the preservation of life, as well as turning a blind eye to the blocking of fire hydrants, violate the duty to protect the basic rights of citizens and the right to life and the right to physical integrity.
Moreover, the NHRCK determined that in spite of their presence at the scene, the failure by police to restrain company employees and service guards employed by the company from assaulting drivers and nurses evacuating patients from inside the factory violated the “duty to prevent the occurrence of danger and protection from crime” under the “Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers.”
2. Additionally, as a result of investigating such acts as spraying large quantities of tear gas whose harmfulness to the human body has not yet been determined, the discharging of electric shock weapons to the face, over which Amnesty International has expressed a concern for safety, and the use of multi-purpose shooters resulting in unconsciousness, the NHRCK determined that such acts cannot be viewed as acts falling within the minimum scope and necessity of the performance and accomplishment of police duties and objectives as such acts violate union members’ physical liberty. In particular, where there is a controversy as to whether the use of police apparatus is harmful to the human body, it is appropriate to immediately examine the safety of such apparatus and restrain its use until such safety has been confirmed.
3. Lastly, the NHRCK determined that the assault and harsh treatment of striking union members who were incapable of resisting after suppression activities had ended exceeding the minimum necessary limit and cannot come within any dimension of a justifiable defense, and that such actions therefore violate the victims’ right to physical safety. However, although there are video recordings of the circumstance prevailing at the time, it is not possible to identify those who conducted such acts, and as such, the NHRCK reached a decision to request the Prosecutor General to investigate the matter.
The NHRCK determined that among the contents of the 55 complaints filed, the blocking of an outsider from coming and going to the factory, the disallowance for family visits, the searching of objects taken into the factory, the prohibition on the taking in of necessary living supplies (except for the minimum food and water), etc., could constitute unavoidable police measures for bringing about an end to the strike without physical force and it is therefore difficult to ask the police to take responsibility for the results of these actions.
Also, concerning noise injuries due to pacification broadcasts, the NHRCK determined that such actions can be viewed as a peaceful solution to conflicts between workers and employers, and it was not excessive enough to constitute a violation of basic rights. Concerning the complaint related to low flying police helicopters, the points that tents were collapsed as a result and that it caused fear to the complainants were acknowledged. However, according to the “Enforcement Rules Concerning Police Aviation Management,” low flying is permitted when it is necessary and no proof could be found that police helicopters were operated beyond the necessary purposes and it is therefore difficult to ask the police to take responsibility for the results of these actions.
