NHRC Recommends Reform to Prevent Late Updating of Police Records on Amnesty and Reinstatement
On 27th June 2003, the National Committee on Deaths of Schoolgirls (President Hong Geun-Soo) filed an appeal to the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) against Prosecutor ‘Kim’, Sergeant ‘Yeo’ and others at Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency, claiming that “During investigation of the victim (‘A’, 28 years), the investigators intentionally ignored the claim that the victim had been granted amnesty from past convictions, and treated the victim as having a criminal record. After having investigated into the case, the NHRC ruled that the victim’s personal rights have been infringed through unnecessarily late processing by the Supreme Public Prosecutor's Office, of information on past criminal records related to amnesty and reinstatement.
The NHRC recommended that the Chief of the Metropolitan Police Agency reform relevant institutions so as to enable criminal records to be more swiftly updated.
This case was raised when the victim, who worked as a volunteer for the Committee on Deaths of Schoolgirls, was arrested while participating in a Gwanghwamun-area candlelight demonstration on 7th June 2003, and made an appeal to the NHRC. The reasons for filing the appeal were that during investigation by Prosecutor Kim and others, △ the prosecutors ignored the claim that the victim had been given immunity and reinstatement for past criminal offenses, △ they had falsely written in their opinion on imprisonment and in the arrest warrant that the victim was ‘under sentence suspension’, and continued to treat the victim as having a criminal record, and △ the prosecutors had unjustly indicted the victim for violation of law on assembly and demonstration and for obstruction of justice, while in fact the victim had participated in a peaceful demonstration.
During the NHRC investigation, Sergeant Yeo – the detective in charge – testified that “The victim did not mention amnesty and reinstatement from past records during the four interrogation sessions that the victim underwent” and that he had “written the victim as being ‘under sentence suspension’ in the opinion and warrant based on the Police Agency computer database.” Prosecutor Kim testified that “Investigation record of Sergeant Yeo stated that the victim was under sentence suspension, and even in the interrogation record, there was no mention of amnesty. That is why the victim was noted, without second thought, to be ‘under sentence suspension’. It was not known forehand and ignored intentionally.”
Having investigated into and synthesized the victim’s investigation record, testimonies of the victim and those whom the appeal has been filed against such as Prosecutor Kim, and the results from the criminal record and amnesty database of the Supreme Public Prosecutor's Office, the NHRC has concluded that there was not enough evidence to prove the part of the appeal that the prosecutors had known of the victim’s amnesty but had ignored the fact intentionally.
However, although the victim had been given amnesty and reinstatement from the Ministry of Justice on 30th April 2003 for past criminal offenses, the change was not reflected in the Police Agency’s computer database, which manages these records. It was found that the victim’s record was transferred from the Supreme Public Prosecutor’s Office on 30th June 2003, 60 days after that grant. The change was then entered into the database system on 8th July. The NHRC also found that other cases where amnesty was granted also took as long as 60 days to be updated in the database.
In short, it had taken 60 days for the criminal records of those who had been granted amnesty, including the victim, to be erased, and thus when field investigators use the database to search for criminal record, there are possibilities that △ prosecutors or the court who use the database can mistakenly identify accused persons as having a criminal record and make disadvantageous rulings, and that △ personal rights of accused persons can be violated by treating them as criminals.
According to the Supreme Public Prosecutor’s Office, the reasons why it takes 60 days or so to process information on amnesty and reinstatement are as follows: △ an amnesty and reinstatement certificate has to be issued, △ relevant information has to be entered into the Agency’s database, △ sentence documents have to be adjusted, and △ list of imprisoned persons needs to be reorganized. However, △ the process is an administrative one following the granting of amnesty and reinstatement by the Ministry of Justice, △ there is no compulsory reason for this administrative process to be completely finished before transferring relevant information to the Police Agency, and △ even if the intentions of the Prosecutor’s Office are partly considered to be just, the NHRC still sees 60 days as being too long.
Therefore, the NHRC ruled out, on basis of insufficient evidence, the claim that Prosecutor Kim and others had intentionally ignored the victim’s record of amnesty and reinstatement, and also the claim that Prosecutor Kim had unjustly indicted the victim since the case is still pending in court. However, the NHRC recognizes that the victim’s personal rights as stipulated in Article 10 of the Constitution have been violated by the inability of the Prosecutor’s Office to swiftly process information on past criminal offenses and thus the inability to reflect the granting of amnesty and reinstatement to the Police Agency database. On the basis of Article 11 Clause 1 Paragraph 2 of the National Human Rights Commission Act (NHRCA), the NHRC has recommended that the ‘Guideline on Administrative Processing of Amnesty, Reduction of Sentence and Reinstatement’ – a regulation of the Supreme Public Prosecutor’s Office – be appropriately amended so as to be able to notify the Chief of Police Agency, without any hindrance, the list of persons who had been granted amnesty and/or reinstatement.
