Bradley Park

NjT Senior Editor 

 

Yongsan-gu, Seoul — The United States following the death of three American soldiers in a drone attack near Syria's border in northeastern Jordan, saw President Joe Biden emphasize that those responsible for the attack would be held accountable in a manner and time of their choosing. This was an explicit declaration of intent to retaliate for the loss of their soldiers. In response, the Republican Party stressed the need for a stronger reaction.

 

The September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, which brought down the World Trade Center in New York City, led President George W. Bush to declare in a national address that America, having defeated enemies before, would do so again. He emphasized the need to find and punish the masterminds behind these acts of terror. This vow was fulfilled a decade later, on May 1, 2011, under President Barack Obama's administration, when Osama bin Laden was killed by U.S. Special Forces in Abbottabad, Pakistan.

 

The United States has a history of responding decisively when its citizens suffer significant harm or death, regardless of political affiliations. In contrast, South Korea often leaves it to the victims or their families to respond on their own when citizens are harmed. If the U.S. had a similar approach, the families of the three deceased soldiers would need to investigate the incident themselves, and the families of the 9/11 victims would not have seen justice served against Osama bin Laden.

 

On October 28, 2022, a tragedy occurred in Itaewon, where a Halloween party crowd crush led to the death of 159 people in an alley. Even after a year, the incident remains unresolved, with bereaved families desperately seeking the passage of a Special Law for Itaewon. Over the past year, these families have resorted to street protests, hunger strikes, and even shaving their heads, seeking justice. They braved the harsh winter, holding 15,900 bows, and on January 29, they marched to the Yongsan Presidential Office, pleading for their cause.

 

However, President Yoon Suk Yeol rejected the Itaewon Special Law on January 30. The rejection was based on several reasons:

 

1. As per the Special Law, the proposed investigative committee could issue attendance orders, impose fines for non-compliance, and request search and seizure warrants without an existing warrant, potentially infringing upon citizens' fundamental rights.
    
2. The committee's composition, including the chairman, could be unfairly skewed toward one party, raising concerns about fairness and neutrality.
    
3. The committee's broad scope and authority might infringe upon the roles and powers of the judiciary and executive branches.
    
4. The committee taking over judiciary roles in determining responsibility and the executive investigating the appropriateness of the entire disaster management process could lead to infringement of their respective domains.
    
5. Since the disaster, investigations by police, prosecutors, national inquiries, and court decisions have already taken place.
    
6. Biased investigations by the committee could waste the national budget and disrupt the operation of frontline disaster management systems.

 

 

The Citizens' Coalition for Economic Justice explained that the 11-member committee, as proposed under the Special Law, would comprise four members, each recommended by the ruling and opposition parties, and three members by the National Assembly Speaker in consultation with related organizations. They emphasized that the committee would not have prosecutorial powers and countered government and ruling party claims about its excessive authority.

​

The Citizens' Coalition for Economic Justice explained the Special Law as follows:
 

1. According to the Special Law, the 11-member investigation committee would consist of four members, each recommended by the ruling and opposition parties and three recommended by the National Assembly Speaker in consultation with related organizations. There are eight non-permanent members and three permanent members, fewer than other special committees established in the past. The committee would not possess prosecutorial or investigative powers like the prosecution, and it is unlikely that a particular law granting such regimes, which no other investigative body has had over the decades, would pass through the National Assembly. The government and ruling party's claims of the committee having 'unlimited authority', 'similar to the prosecution', or 'virtually a special prosecutor' are not factual. Search and seizure warrants requested by the committee would not be executed if the prosecution or the Supreme Prosecutors' Office were deemed inappropriate or rejected by the court. The ruling party, the People Power Party, had opposed the composition, stating that it effectively consisted of four members recommended by the ruling party and seven by the opposition.
    

2. In response to the ruling party and government's claim that the bill was processed solely by the opposition, the Citizens' Coalition for Economic Justice explained that attempts were made for bipartisan consultation on the Special Law on January 3, 5, and 8. Despite the ruling party's agreement on forming the committee, the negotiations ultimately failed because they insisted on filling more than half of the committee with their recommended individuals. Thus, it was not that there was no bipartisan agreement but that the ruling party broke off negotiations when their demands were unmet. Trying to defend the government that could be the subject of investigation and appointing ruling party nominees as chairperson of the committee or filling more than half the committee with ruling party nominees is an unreasonable claim. The bereaved families, who compromised a lot and appealed to the government and ruling party hoping for bipartisan agreement, were deeply hurt when the ruling party walked out just before the vote on the Special Law.
    

3. In the special investigation by the police into themselves, only certain police officers and local government officials, such as the Yongsan Police Station chief and the Yongsan District mayor, were indicted. In contrast, others, including the Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency chief, have yet to be charged. The National Assembly's investigation, lasting only 28 days, secured limited data and some statements from the hearing process but failed to respond to individuals who avoided attendance, made false statements, or did not submit materials. Especially the Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency chief had foreseen the crowd gathering before the disaster but only instructed verbal preparations, focusing police forces only on demonstration sites rather than managing crowd safety. There has been no satisfactory answer as to why preventive measures were not taken before the disaster, why there was neglect in managing crowd safety despite anticipating the crowd, and why the response and rescue activities were slow, leading to numerous deaths. These fundamental causes of the situation need to be revealed.

 

 

Regarding the bereaved families' desperate wish for the Itaewon Special Law to clarify the truth, the government responded on the 30th, "The police deployed over 500 personnel for a thorough investigation of the incident. Through supplementary investigations by the prosecution, 23 people, including the Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency chief, were indicted, with six being detained. The government has done its best in clarifying the truth and the cause."

 

The Hankook Ilbo newspaper pointed out in its January 30 article that the prosecution's investigation was inadequate, failing to decide whether to indict Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency chief Kim Kwang-ho even after more than a year since the disaster. Despite over a year since the Itaewon disaster, there has been no criminal punishment for those responsible, and former officials like the Yongsan Police Station chief and the Yongsan District mayor have been released on bail after slow trials.

 

Furthermore, the government embarrassed the bereaved families and the public by talking about the maximum compensation support on the 30th, over a year after the disaster.

 

 

 

Hong Young-pyo, a member of the Democratic Party, wrote on Facebook, "The Yoon Suk Yeol government, which has so far avoided all responsibility for the disaster, has once again abused its power to silence the victims and their families. Rejecting the Special Law and talking about 'maximum compensation support' is a shameless and disgraceful act by an unashamed government." Jo O-sub, another Democratic Party member, said, "The Yoon Suk Yeol government's reason for vetoing the law is nonsensical. How can including bereaved families in the committee's composition be unfair? Furthermore, the provision for accessing records of non-prosecuted or halted investigations is considered toxic. Still, if the existing police and prosecution investigations were not inadequate, the Special Law and committee would not have been necessary in the first place."

 

Regarding the government's claim of thorough investigation, the Hankyoreh newspaper pointed out that even if 5,000 officers were involved, an investigation by the police into their own mistakes would be meaningless.

 

According to Hankyoreh, Lee Im-Jae, the Seoul Yongsan Police Station chief and the primary person responsible for the scene, controlled a demonstration near the Yongsan Presidential Office just before the disaster. This suggests a possible indirect connection between President Yoon and the Itaewon disaster.

 

Globally, when discussing human rights issues in Korea, the focus is usually on North Korea. Now, South Korea is also facing severe human rights violations, necessitating deep involvement from the UN.

 

 

 

​The following are recommendations from the UN Human Rights Committee:​

 

Right to life – Itaewon disaster (Source: OHCHR) 

​

27. The Committee is concerned that the State party allegedly failed to ensure that adequate measures were in place to prevent and respond to the crowd crush disaster that occurred on 29 October 2022 in Itaewon, Seoul, which resulted in the death of 159 people and left hundreds injured. The Committee expresses disappointment that a full-scale, independent investigation of the causes of the incident does not appear to have been carried out to determine the truth, and that effective remedies have not been provided to victims. Furthermore, the Committee is disturbed by reports that authorities have obstructed efforts to memorialize victims of the disaster, including by using excessive force at memorial rallies and investigating human rights activists who participate in such rallies (arts. 2 and 6).
 

28. Bearing in mind the Committee’s general comment No. 36 (2018), the State party should:

(a) Establish an independent and impartial body to investigate the disaster and determine the truth;

(b) Ensure that those responsible, including those in senior positions, are brought to justice and, if convicted, punished with appropriate sanctions;

(c) Provide adequate reparation and memorialization for victims and bereaved families;

(d) Guarantee non-recurrence.

​

The Itaewon Disaster Victims' Rights Committee stated that the Itaewon disaster inflicted irrevocable harm and defined it as a massive human rights violation by the state. They claimed that victims were deprived of their rights to life, safety, dignity, truth, support, and mourning, from the lack of safety measures before the disaster to the inadequate support afterward.

​

South Korea is currently a country where human rights are being severely violated.

 

- 결제 즉시 유료 기사를 열람하실 수 있습니다.
- 디지털 콘텐츠 특성상 환불되지 않습니다. (단, 미사용시 환불 요청 가능)
- 결제한 내역은 마이페이지 결제내역에서 확인 할 수 있습니다.
- 환불 및 변경 문의와 관련해서는 메인페이지 하단 [이용약관 및 고객지원]을 통해
더 자세한 도움을 받으실 수 있습니다.
- 정기회원권은 회원가입 후 이용이 가능합니다.
- 정기회원권은 마이페이지 또는 사이트 우측 상단 이용권결제를 이용해주세요.

Bradley Park 기자

올려 0 내려 1