COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
\nSixty-first session
\nItem 11 (g) of the provisional agenda<\/p>\n
CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS, INCLUDING THE QUESTIONS OF:
\nCONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION TO MILITARY SERVICE<\/p>\n
Conscientious objectors in the Republic of Korea
\n1. In spite of the continued efforts of the Commission with regard to the recognition of the right
\nof everyone to have conscientious objection to military service, we still remains in deep concern
\nabout the denial of the right to conscientious objection in the Republic of Korea. As outlined in
\nour written statements to the previous sessions of the Commission [E\/CN.4\/2003\/NGO\/25,
\nE\/CN.4\/2002\/NGO\/126], it is estimated that every year about 700 young people eligible for a
\nmilitary draft are sent to prison owing to their refusal to bear arms on grounds of their
\nconvictions. Most of conscientious objectors in the Republic of Korea are Jehovah\u2019s Witnesses
\nwhile the number of conscientious objectors with non-religious motives has been continuously
\nincreasing. In 2004, Seok-min Kim, Jin Choi, Won-pyo Lee and Jae-seong Lim declared their
\nconscientious objection on account of their antiwar conviction and pacifism.
\n2. As of 15 January 2005, total 817 conscientious objectors are imprisoned in the Republic of
\nKorea. The number of conscientious objectors in prison is set to rise to over 1,000 considering
\nthe situation that the cases of subjecting conscientious objectors to imprisonment have been
\nsharply increasing since the decision of the Constitutional Court was given in August 2004 that
\nthe provision of the Military Service Act, under which conscientious objectors have been
\npunished, is not inconsistent with the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion as laid
\ndown in the Constitution.
\n3. In its statement before the 60th session of the Commission under agenda item 11, the
\ngovernment of the Republic of Korea stated that it would continue to make efforts to explore
\nvarious possible ways to address the issue of conscientious objection to military service. The
\nposition of the concerned authorities in the Republic of Korea, however, has been hardly
\nimproved. In July 2004, on the cases of Myung-jin Choi and Yeo-bum Yoon, the Supreme Court
\nfound them guilty under the Military Service Act stating that the freedom of conscience shall not
\nprecede the obligation of national defense in a divided situation of the Korean peninsula. The
\nindividual complaints of Myung-jin Choi and Yeo-bum Yoon are now under consideration of the
\nHuman Rights Committee, a monitoring body of the International Covenant on Civil and
\nPolitical Rights (ICCPR). As mentioned above, in August 2004, the Constitutional Court ruled
\nthat Article 88(1) of the Military Service Act, under which conscientious objectors are punished
\nas draft dodgers, is not in violation of the Constitution, while there were separate opinions
\nrecognizing the need of alternative services for conscientious objectors and advising lawmakers
\nto adopt legislative measures as requested.
\n4. Meanwhile, in November 2004, twenty-two members of the National Assembly proposed a
\nrevised bill of the Military Service Act for the purpose of introducing an alternative for
\nconscientious objectors, and ten members of Democratic Labor Party also suggested the related
\nbill. The bills, however, have been stalled without any further constructive discussion. The
\nNational Human Rights Commission, which has a mandate to provide relief measures for the
\nvictims of human rights violations and to recommend the government to fully observe
\ninternational human rights law, has also been silent over the situation where hundreds of people
\nare criminalized due to the exercise of their legitimate right to conscientious objection, which is
\nuniversally recognized in the international human rights instruments.
\n5. At this juncture, we want to recall that the Commission in its resolution 2004\/35 called upon
\nStates that have not yet done so to review their current laws and practices in relation to
\nconscientious objection to military service in the light of Commission resolution 1998\/77. We
\nalso note with concern that the government of the Republic of Korea, even as a member of the
\nCommission, has not provided any related information to the Office of the UN High
\nCommissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) with regard to making a concerted efforts to address
\nthe issue by analyzing the existing practices.
\n6. It is clear that more and more young people will become victims of violations of human rights
\nregarding conscientious objection. In light of this, we strongly urge the Government of the
\nRepublic of Korea, which is a member of the Commission and a party to the ICCPR, to:
\n(a) Recognize the right to conscientious objection to military service at domestic level, not
\nonly at international level and immediately stop criminalizing conscientious objectors by
\nproviding various forms of alternative services;
\n(b) Take further active initiatives in raising awareness among Korean society on the right to
\nconscientious objection, not sitting and waiting as a bystander for a social consensus to be
\nreached;
\n(c) Fully and substantively cooperate with the OHCHR and submit relevant materials on the
\ncurrent laws and practices in relation to the recognition and implementation of the right to
\nconscientious objection to military service;
\n(d) Invite the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief in order for him to
\ninvestigate the violations of human rights on conscientious objection in the Republic of
\nKorea, and extend a standing invitation to all thematic special procedures of the
\nCommission.
\n7. Furthermore, we call on the Commission to:
\n(a) Pay sincere attention to the human rights violations committed in the countries which have
\nnot yet recognized the right to conscientious objection to military service;
\n(b) Continuously work on the possible monitoring mechanisms, further to the preparation of
\nthe compilation and analytic report of best practices, to make sure the effective
\nimplementation of the right to conscientious objection to military service.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS Sixty-first session Item 11 (g) of the provisional agenda CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS, INCLUDING THE QUESTIONS OF: CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION TO MILITARY SERVICE Conscientious objectors in the […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2162],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-128","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-un-reports-on-republic-of-korea"],"yoast_head":"\n