In March 2007, a complainant known only as Kim (a 30-year-old female) filed a complaint with the National Human Rights Commission of Korea (NHRCK), contending that her right to integrity was violated when the respondent, in the course of offering counseling to the victim of sexual violence, made such inappropriate remarks as "I would not live with such a woman [who was sexually assaulted]." Regarding the complaint, the Commission recommended that the head of the O police station issue a warning to the relevant police officer.
According to the findings of the Commission"s investigation, the respondent known only as Kim (a forty-year-old male police officer) said, while talking on the phone with the complainant about her suffering sexual violence, "I would not live with such a woman [who was sexually assaulted]," "The animal called man is so simple and ignorant that he waves his fist at his wife if his wife shows the slightest sign of wrongful thoughts, saying "you XXX, you did this with that XX!"" and "The mother [of a sexual violence victim] is disgraced before her son-in-law."
The respondent alleged that the complainant had called him by telephone in protest, saying that she heard from her assaulter that the respondent had verbally insulted the complainant. According to the respondent, he made certain remarks to her about possible consequences which a victim of sexual violence may suffer from her husband to the effect that "even if you say that you did not have any sexual relations with the alleged assaulter, your husband would not believe it. Besides, your family life might end in failure and domestic violence might occur." He then told the complainant that he had merely said to her assaulter, "Both of you are married. So, I believe that it is desirable to end this case swiftly and quietly in consideration of your wife and her husband."
Based on its investigation into this complaint, the NHRCK has determined that:
△ Regarding sexual violence, female victims are more likely to receive social criticism than protection. They often suffer secondary consequences as a result of feelings of shame, disgust, mortification and guilt rather than being provided with appropriate support because of chauvinism and inadequate sexual awareness and sensitivity shown by law enforcement officials who lack sexual sensibility in the investigation and trial process;
△ The respondent is a law enforcement officer who must protect a crime victim, understand the victim"s position, and prevent secondary consequences;
△ Despite these circumstances, the respondent gave the complainant an inappropriate explanation, expressed inadequate opinions and jumped to his own conclusion, speaking as though the tragic consequences repeatedly incurred to the victims of sexual violence at home and in society in the past were actually taking place now generally and universally;
△ Even if the respondent"s explanation to the complainant was not driven by any malice on his part and was not intended as criticism of victims of sexual violence, he used inappropriate wordings and remarks that criticize victims and inflict on them psychological pain including a sense of discomfort, guilt and disgust. This is deemed an infringement on their right to integrity as provided in Article 10 of the Constitution.
Accordingly, the NHRCK recommended that the head of the O police station issue a warning to the relevant police officer.
