NHRCK Recommends to the Commissioner of Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency and the Commander of Combat Police to Take Urgent Action for the Combat Police Officer Lee
At the ‘Coalition Meeting to abolish combat police’ NHRCK (AHN, Kyong-Whan, Chairperson) recommended to the Commissioner of Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency to take urgent action in response to a complaint submitted by Combat Police officer, Lee. NHRCK recommended the Commissioner of SMPA to implement humanistic measures taking into account the petitioner’s situation and transfer Lee to a different station. The NHRCK also recommended the Commander of Combat Police to relieve him from all restrictions, including the restrictions on visitation, Internet usage, and outside visits that was enforced for over two months.
The petitioners filed a complaint for an urgent action on July 17, 2008, asking for relief from mistreatment and sanction that were enforced by the Combat Police Unit. The petitioners claimed that they were suffering from unfair disciplinary measures taken against them, prosecution, isolation, and harassment from the Unit. They further claimed that they were sanctioned for asking for transfer of post to the army and posting materials on the Internet. Under the sanctions, they were placed close to complete isolation from the outside world
Although the petitioner was punished for 15 days for posting materials criticizing the combat police on the Internet, the Combat Police Unit enforced severe disciplinary measures, restricting visitation, Internet use, and outside visits. Since these disciplinary measures were not included in the official disciplinary regulations, the NHRCK determined that these additional measures were outside the scope of authority granted to them. These measures amounted to extreme punishment in violation of the right to security, freedom of expression and right to pursue happiness protected by the Constitution. It also breached the principle of proportionality that requires the disciplinary measure to be legitimate, proportionate to the breach, and least restrain the rights.
As for the transfer to a different unit, NHRCK found that it was only right to intitate the transfer procedure because the petitioner suffered from beatings from senior officers on two occasions, and is still suffering from prosecution, retaliation and isolation, which is not likely to stop. Without proper action, further incidence of human rights violation is likely to occur and the NHRCK thought it proper to take appropriate and active measures to transfer the victim to a different unit for the prevention of future violation.
