Rights commission meeting descends into chaos over Yoon defense rights motion

A contentious National Human Rights Commission meeting in South Korea dissolved into chaos on Thursday, as commissioners clashed over an agenda item concerning a previous recommendation to guarantee President Yoon Suk-yeol's right to defense. The attempt to abolish the controversial recommendation, made in February 2023, was ultimately blocked by Commission Chairman Ahn Chang-ho.

“

There are no special regulations regarding the agenda item. I will definitely put the agenda item on the table. However, due to the seriousness of the matter and legal review required, I will not put it on the table today.

Commissioners who had co-sponsored the motion to abolish the recommendation, citing it as a past instance of the commission violating its political independence and neutrality, walked out of the meeting. They accused Chairman Ahn of an "anti-human rights act" for refusing to put the matter to a vote, despite a recent shift in the commission's composition favoring progressive members.

The original recommendation, passed with six votes in favor, had called for guaranteeing Yoon's defense rights in relation to a national crisis during a state of emergency. Critics argued this decision amounted to defending the alleged leader of a rebellion and undermined human rights values. The controversy has persisted, leading to ongoing demands for Chairman Ahn's resignation from commission staff.

“

This recommendation was already legally made and has been executed, so its effect cannot be retroactively lost. The new resolution itself is invalid as it aims for an impossible legal effect.

During the meeting, commissioners debated the nature of the 12.12 and 12.13 military events, which formed the basis of the original recommendation. While some commissioners argued that the recommendation only upheld the principle of due process, others countered that it appeared to protect the defense rights of those involved in a rebellion, while neglecting the rights of citizens who had defended the National Assembly during the emergency.

“

It is not a violation of political independence and neutrality, but rather a reflection on the past when the Human Rights Commission violated political independence and neutrality and interfered in a specific trial.

Following the failure to table the motion, five commissioners who supported its abolition refused to participate in the remainder of the meeting. They later held a press conference, denouncing the chairman's refusal to discuss the matter and calling for a public apology for the "shameful" original resolution.

“

The suffering experienced by the Human Rights Commission staff due to the approval of the recommendation is significant. We urge the tabling and approval of the abolition motion.