Requested by the National Assembly to present its opinion with regards to the Bill on the Exemption Law on State Violations of Human Rights (hereafter ‘Exemption Bill’) which was introduced by Lawmaker Lee, Won-young, the National Human Rights Commission of Korea reviewed the Bill and decided to send its opinion to the Speaker of the National Assembly: The Commission: (1) agreed that there needs to be an exemption law that eliminates or suspends the application of the negative prescription, a time limitation to enforce the law, on human rights violations committed by the state that cannot be considered crimes against humanity under international law; (2) recommended limiting the scope of crimes that are subject to the negative prescription and concretely stipulating the period of suspension; and (3) recommended not eliminating or suspending the negative prescription in terms of civil cases, but to come up with a special law that extends the prescription period, provided that cases that have not expired shall be applied to the exemption law.
NHRC had already recommended the government to sign the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court regarding crimes against humanity on June 3 of 2002. It also presented its opinion on a draft bill on the Punishment of Crimes Under the Jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court on September 22 of 2003. Since then it has taken interest in human rights violations committed by the state and came to express its opinions on the exemption law requested by the Legislation and Judiciary Committee of the National Assembly on September 5, 2005.
NHRC acknowledged that in cases of criminal human rights violations committed by the government or with the approval of the government, (1) victims cannot find a place to appeal, (2) government agencies could manipulate or conceal the truth of the case and the case cannot be included in crimes against humanity in the international law, and (3) to prevent grave human rights violations, an exemption law on crimes of manipulation and concealment by state needs to eliminate or suspend the negative prescription. However, NHRC stated that some of the content of the bill shall be revised and supplemented as follows:
First, concerning public officials’ duties, Article 2 of the Exemption Law includes the application of the negative prescription when crimes, stated on each article of Chapter 24 of Criminal Law (murder), on Article 125 of Criminal Law (assault and severe acts), Article 62 of Military Criminal Law (severe acts), are committed or when a person is murdered. The scope of the Article is too broad. Therefore, it would be desirable for the Act to be limited to grave human rights violations such as organized or planned criminal acts committed by the state.
Secondly, Article 3 of the Exemption Law unclearly stipulates the end of the period of the negative prescription as “a time when such truth of manipulation or concealment was revealed.” Therefore, for instance, it would be desirable for the article to stipulate the period as a time when a court or a government organization with authority (or a relevant organization) admits the truth of a manipulated or concealed case in a more specific manner.
Thirdly, the negative prescription of civil cases is equivalent to one of a public case in the Exemption Law. However, both prescriptions should be treated differently. In terms of the right to demand compensation from the government, a longer period of negative prescription should be adopted rather than the current short period, provided that cases whose negative prescriptions have not expired yet should apply to the short period.
Concerning the negative prescription of human rights violations in international law, NHRC recommended the Minister of Justice to promptly establish an implementation regulation that is consistent with the rational that NHRC presented in its opinion on the Bill on the Punishment of Crimes Under the Jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court on September 22, 2003. –End-
