The NHRCK (Chairperson Byung-chul Hyun), upon the decision that it is a violation of code of conduct that a policeman’s action of summoning a child of a person whose prosecution is stayed (10 years old, referred to as “victim”) to school office to ask questions about the whereabouts of the child’s mother whose prosecution is stayed, eventually leading the victim to take psychiatric therapy, requested the chairperson of the KBA Legal Aid Foundation to provide assistance to the compensation suit for the petitioner and her child.
The petitioner (female, 35) submitted a complaint before the NHRCK in May 2013 claiming that ‘on 3 May 2013, the policeman in a uniform met with the 4th-grader victim at his school saying that “if you don’t tell me where your mother is and her phone number, I will punish you and take you away” in his attempt to arrest the petitioner whose prosecution was stayed for unpaid penalty. The victim, who has been suffering from bad health, was mentally shocked and was hospitalized.‘
The concerned policeman answered that as a part of the concentrated arrest operations planned by the OO provincial police agency, he was engaged in investigations to arrest the petitioner whose prosecution was stayed for unpaid penalty. He had difficulty finding her until he was informed that the petitioner’s child is enrolled as a 4th grade student at OO elementary school to which he visited on 3 May 2013 at 14:00. The vice principal, saying that the school should also be informed of the issue concerning the child, called the homeroom teacher of the child to bring him to the school office. There, the policeman asked ‘do you live with your mother, because I would like to ask some questions to her’. The child told him the petitioner’s phone number after which he sent the child back to class. He denied allegations that he said ‘I will punish you and take you away.’
Violation of Freedom to Privacy of the Petitioner
Upon investigation, the NHRCK has found that the police officer made it apparent that an investigation on the petitioner was taking place, by visiting the school office in a police uniform with a police vehicle, and calling the victim to the office where it was occupied with teachers.
Article 17 of the Constitution ensures the right to privacy, as well as Article 59(2) of the Personal Information Protection Act and Article 9 of the Office Regulations for Human Rights Protection, a Police Agency Directive, which prohibits acts of leaking personal information gathered during investigation. In particular, the fact that the police has placed the person whose prosecution is stayed on the wanted list may incur moral disadvantage on the individual, leading the Commission to conclude that privacy rights of the petitioner ensured by Article 17 of the Constitution was in violation.
Violation of Personal Rights and Personal Liberty
Article 4 and 10 of the Office Regulations for Human Rights Protection, a Police Agency Directive, provides that a police officer on duty should respect and protect the human rights of all individuals, and give meticulous care to each special needs of socially disadvantaged people.
Upon general consideration that (1) it is difficult to recognize that the situation was pressing enough to warrant the police officer's visit to the school to meet with a 10-year-old child during his class to find the whereabouts of the person whose prosecution is stayed; (2) the act of questioning the child of the whereabouts of his mother (the petitioner) in front of many teachers may have inflicted much fear and embarrassment on the child; (3) and the child became unable to attend school and was hospitalized for psychiatric treatment for several months, the Commission has concluded that the police officer has violated the personal rights and personal liberty ensured by Article 10 and 12 of the Constitution.
Therefore, the NHRCK decided to request for legal remedy under Article 47 of the National Human Rights Commission Act so that the petitioner and her child may be compensated for the damage incurred by the police officer. The Commission also decided that there would be no additional measure taken against the police officer since a disciplinary action has already been taken against him.
