In February of 2005, a petition was filed by Ms. K (38) with the National Human Rights Commission against 2 policemen from a police station located in Gyeonggi Province, stating “I was emotionally traumatized from being unfairly forced by the police to go to the police station.” In response, NHRC confirmed the case was a human rights violation and found the two policemen had broken relevant regulations. The Commission recommended the Chief of the police station to take action to warn the policemen and to require them to receive special human rights education.
Ms. K, the petitioner, claimed that around 6 pm on November 12 of 2004, two policemen visited and demanded she come to the police station regarding a case of real estate fraud of XX construction Corp. Throughout this process, she said, (1) she had to leave her work place and bring her four-year-old daughter home before her kindergarten closes at 8: 30 pm. So she told them it was impossible to go to the police station that day. She did say she would voluntarily go to the station the next day for the investigation. However, (2) one policeman said “Go get your daughter from the kindergarten and bring her with you to the station for the investigation. If you don’t we could force you to go to the station.” Also, the other policeman frightened her by taking out his handcuffs from his pocket. She said for almost two hours, she was threatened to visit the station.
In response to the complaint, the policemen said that (1) it is true that they visited her workplace to ask her to come to the station because they needed her statement while they were tipped for the fraud case. (2) However, they came back without her when she promised to visit the station the next day saying that she could not come because of her daughter. They just suggested the idea to get her daughter and bring her along to the station because she couldn’t come due to her daughter. They said that it is she who shamelessly treated them saying ‘you are not humans.’ (3) They also contested the fact that they took out the handcuffs because they say they did not bring the handcuffs with them to her workplace.
Nevertheless, NHRC found that:
1. The policemen unexpectedly came and demanded her to accompany them.
2. Despite her situation of having no one to watch her daughter and having promised to visit the station the next day, they spent 2 hours at the complainant’s office and suggested she pick up her four-year-old daughter and bring her to the station.
3. Consequently, it was confirmed that they left her office when she sat on the floor and wailed.
4. Also, one of her co-workers stated that she saw the policeman taking the handcuffs out of his pants pocket and put them on a desk.
Even though Article 221 of the Code of Criminal Procedure states that a prosecutor or police officer may demand the attendance of a witness (not a suspect) when it is necessary for investigation, in practice, the investigators depend on the witness’s cooperation. So care should be taken not upset or damage the honor of the witness when asking for his/her cooperation in making a statements.
NHRC concluded that the acts of the two policemen created an oppressive atmosphere to coerce the petitioner to go and give a statement in the station, rather than asking for cooperation. This infringed on Article 12 (personal liberty) of the Constitution, Article 18 of the Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials and Article 10 of the Working Rules of Investigation for Human Rights Protection thereby violating the petitioner’s human rights.
As a result, NHRC recommended the Chief of the police station to take action to warn the relevant policemen and to require them to receive ‘special human rights education.’ –End-
