NHRCK submitted its opinion to the Supreme Court regarding conscientious objection
o National Human Rights Commission of Korea submitted its opinion to the Supreme Court with regard to the pending case on violation of Article 88 Section 1 of the Military Service Act and Article 15 Section 9 of the Reserve Forces Act that conscientious objectors should not be subject to criminal punishment as it is reasonable to deny to serve in the military based on their conscience.
o The Supreme Court, before having en banc open pleading with regards to criminal punishment to conscientious objectors on August 30, asked NHRCK to submit its opinion whether ‘denial to serve in military based on conscientious or religion’ is ‘reasonable’ under related provisions of the Military Service Act and Reserve Forces Act.
o On June 28, the Constitutional Court held that Article 88 Section 1 on punishing objectors to military service of the Military Service Act is constitutional but the Article 5 Section 1 of the same Act is nonconforming to the Constitution for not stipulating alternative service options for conscientious objectors and thus infringes on objector’s freedom of conscientious. Hence before the provision is amended, it is, in principle, up to individual court’s decision to rule whether conscientious objectors under trial violated Article 88 Section 1 of the Military Service Act.
o Hence, NHRCK believing that those cases and ruling of the Supreme Court may have grave impact on protection of human rights of conscientious objectors, submitted its opinion as follows.
o Recently, we are witnessing changes in court rulings and social perception with regards to conscientious objection. Since the very first appellate judgement of acquital in October 2016, the number of judgement of acquital at first trial is increasing and the number from January last year to June this year stands at 72 cases. In addition, three draft bills for introduction of alternative service are proposed to the 20th session of the National Assembly. As such, the need for introduction of alternative service to enable conscientious objectors to fulfill the military duty in different ways instead of punishing them is increasing.
o The UN Human Rights Council confirmed in 1986 that conscientious objection is protected under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, in 1989 it confirmed the ‘right’ to conscientious objection in 1898. In particular, the UN Human Rights Committee admitted the individual communication filed by conscientious objectors in Korea in 2006, and requested the Korean government to release them and provide remedial measures, concluding that punishing conscientious objectors violates Article 18 of the ICCPR.
o NHRCK recommended for introduction of alternative service several times since December 2005, and in November 2016, NHRCK submitted its opinion to the Supreme Court with regard to the case on acknowledgement of the right to conscientious objection.
o Meanwhile, NHRCK currently commissioned a research on introduction of alternative service, and based on the result of the research, NHRCK will propose alternative measures to the government and National Assembly.
