Most Popular
-
1
Actor Jung Woo-sung admits to being father of model Moon Ga-bi’s child
-
2
Wealthy parents ditch Korean passports to get kids into international school
-
3
First snow to fall in Seoul on Wednesday
-
4
Man convicted after binge eating to avoid military service
-
5
Trump picks ex-N. Korea policy official as his principal deputy national security adviser
-
6
Final push to forge UN treaty on plastic pollution set to begin in Busan
-
7
Korea to hold own memorial for forced labor victims, boycotting Japan’s
-
8
S. Korea not to attend Sado mine memorial: foreign ministry
-
9
Nvidia CEO signals Samsung’s imminent shipment of AI chips
-
10
Toxins at 622 times legal limit found in kids' clothes from Chinese platforms
Military watchdog asks for investigation of violations related to pro-N.K. app ban
Human rights organizations have criticized the National Human Rights Commission for rejecting requests to look into reports of human rights violations in the Army.
According to non-governmental organizations, the National Human Rights Commission rejected a request from the Center for Military Human Rights to investigate alleged rights violations by an Army unit that was trying to uncover the person who leaked an internal document.
The leaked document was drawn up by the Army’s 6th Corps, and directed officers and non-commissioned officers to delete smartphone applications considered pro-North Korea or critical of the South Korean government. Along with the Army Logistics Command, the 6th Corps is one of two army units that have banned officers from using such applications.
When the developments were reported by the media, the 6th artillery brigade of the 6th Corps conducted an investigation to find the whistleblower.
In the process, relevant personnel in the artillery unit were made to submit their smartphones and call records. The unit’s command then ran a data recovery program to find the person responsible for disclosing the document.
When the Center for Military Human Rights became aware of the developments, it petitioned the National Human Rights Commission, asking it to conduct an ex officio investigation.
Under Article 30 of the National Human Rights Commission Act, the commission is able to launch an ex officio investigation without being petitioned when there is sufficient evidence that human rights violations have occurred and the issue is considered important.
An ex officio investigation is conducted by a dedicated team and takes priority over those initiated after petitions have been filed.
In a statement sent to the military human rights center, the National Human Rights Commission said that as the case can be investigated according to normal procedures, an ex officio investigation will not be opened.
Non-governmental organizations, however, have rejected such explanations saying that the commission was underplaying the significance of the case.
According to Korea Human Rights Policy Institute chief Kim Hyung-wan, the majority of ex officio investigations were opened after petitions were filed, and such mass censorship and violation of officers’ privacy were human rights violations of unprecedented magnitude.
By Choi He-suk (cheesuk@heraldcorp.com)
Human rights organizations have criticized the National Human Rights Commission for rejecting requests to look into reports of human rights violations in the Army.
According to non-governmental organizations, the National Human Rights Commission rejected a request from the Center for Military Human Rights to investigate alleged rights violations by an Army unit that was trying to uncover the person who leaked an internal document.
The leaked document was drawn up by the Army’s 6th Corps, and directed officers and non-commissioned officers to delete smartphone applications considered pro-North Korea or critical of the South Korean government. Along with the Army Logistics Command, the 6th Corps is one of two army units that have banned officers from using such applications.
When the developments were reported by the media, the 6th artillery brigade of the 6th Corps conducted an investigation to find the whistleblower.
In the process, relevant personnel in the artillery unit were made to submit their smartphones and call records. The unit’s command then ran a data recovery program to find the person responsible for disclosing the document.
When the Center for Military Human Rights became aware of the developments, it petitioned the National Human Rights Commission, asking it to conduct an ex officio investigation.
Under Article 30 of the National Human Rights Commission Act, the commission is able to launch an ex officio investigation without being petitioned when there is sufficient evidence that human rights violations have occurred and the issue is considered important.
An ex officio investigation is conducted by a dedicated team and takes priority over those initiated after petitions have been filed.
In a statement sent to the military human rights center, the National Human Rights Commission said that as the case can be investigated according to normal procedures, an ex officio investigation will not be opened.
Non-governmental organizations, however, have rejected such explanations saying that the commission was underplaying the significance of the case.
According to Korea Human Rights Policy Institute chief Kim Hyung-wan, the majority of ex officio investigations were opened after petitions were filed, and such mass censorship and violation of officers’ privacy were human rights violations of unprecedented magnitude.
By Choi He-suk (cheesuk@heraldcorp.com)
-
Articles by Korea Herald
![[More than APT] Residents, architects together design homes](http://res.heraldm.com/phpwas/restmb_idxmake.php?idx=652&simg=/content/image/2024/11/24/20241124050036_0.jpg&u=)
