🚨 National Human Rights Commission: Role and Independence Controversy

Today Korean Social News | 2025.03.28

📌 'Independence Controversy' National Human Rights Commission Subject to Special Review by International Human Rights Organization

💬 The National Human Rights Commission has been designated for special review by the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions (GANHRI). Civil society organizations claim that the Commission has lost its independence and role by ignoring human rights violations under martial law and making decisions to protect the President's right to defense. GANHRI has formalized these concerns and will review whether the Commission can maintain its A-grade status. The Commission must submit relevant materials by June 1.

Summary

• The National Human Rights Commission is an independent national institution established for the protection and promotion of human rights, with its independence from government being crucial.
• It is an internationally recognized national human rights institution, with its international credibility determined through evaluation by the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions (GANHRI).
• If international trust is shaken due to independence controversies, it could lead to international concern about domestic human rights situations and a decline in national image.

1️⃣ Definition

The National Human Rights Commission refers to an independent national institution established to protect and enhance the basic human rights of all individuals. Simply put, it plays the role of protecting citizens' human rights, investigating human rights violations, and developing and recommending human rights-related policies.

The National Human Rights Commission was established in November 2001 according to the 'National Human Rights Commission Act' and operates independently for the practical guarantee and promotion of human rights guaranteed by the Constitution and laws.

💡 Why is it important?

• It serves as the last bastion protecting the basic rights of all people.
• It plays a check-and-balance role against human rights violations and discrimination by government institutions.
• It serves as a bridge applying and spreading international human rights standards domestically.

2️⃣ Functions and Roles of the National Human Rights Commission

📕 Organization and Status

• It has the status of an independent national institution. The National Human Rights Commission is an independent body not belonging to any branch of government—legislative, judicial, or executive—and operates independently without interference from other state institutions. This independence is to ensure that the Commission can fairly investigate and criticize human rights violations by government agencies. The Commission consists of 11 members, including one chairperson and three standing commissioners, who are recommended by the National Assembly, the President, and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. This design with various entities participating in the recommendation process prevents bias toward any particular power. Commissioners serve a three-year term, which can be renewed, but their tenure is guaranteed to maintain political independence. The National Human Rights Commission has maintained the highest A-grade from the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions as a national human rights institution that meets international standards known as the Paris Principles.

• It performs investigation and recommendation functions. The National Human Rights Commission has the authority to investigate human rights violations and discriminatory acts. It can receive complaints from individuals or organizations, or conduct investigations on its own initiative when necessary. During investigations, it can request submission of relevant materials, conduct field investigations, and interview parties involved and witnesses. If human rights violations or discriminatory acts are confirmed, it can issue recommendations for corrective action to the relevant institution or individual. Although the Commission's recommendations do not have legal binding force and cannot be enforced, they are officially announced and serve as social and moral pressure. The Commission also conducts surveys on human rights situations and presents recommendations for improvement of human rights policies to government agencies. Through these activities, it contributes to improving laws, systems, policies, and practices, and raising human rights awareness throughout society.

📕 Major Areas of Work

• It works for the correction of discrimination and promotion of equality rights. The National Human Rights Commission investigates and corrects discrimination based on gender, disability, age, race, religion, sexual orientation, and other grounds. It investigates cases of discrimination in various areas such as employment, education, use of goods and services, and issues recommendations for correction. It also engages in various activities to promote equality rights, such as pushing for the enactment of anti-discrimination laws, developing policies to guarantee the human rights of persons with disabilities, and improving systems for gender equality. The Commission particularly focuses on protecting the rights of socially vulnerable and minority groups, and actively responds to human rights violations against vulnerable populations such as the elderly, children, persons with disabilities, migrants, and sexual minorities. For instance, it has made recommendations for the installation of facilities for persons with disabilities, proposed policies for protecting the human rights of migrant workers, and worked on improving refugee screening systems.

• It strives to protect civil and political rights. The National Human Rights Commission plays a role in protecting civil and political rights such as freedom of assembly and association, freedom of expression, and freedom of religion. It safeguards the basic values of democracy through investigations and recommendations regarding police excessive force, assembly restrictions, and press suppression. It also conducts monitoring and investigation activities to prevent human rights violations in detention facilities (prisons, detention centers, probation centers, etc.). Through regular visits to detention facilities, it examines issues such as treatment of inmates, medical services, and violence, and recommends improvements. In particular, it also serves as the National Preventive Mechanism (NPM) for preventing torture and ensuring human dignity. Additionally, it promotes institutional improvements in human rights vulnerable areas such as military human rights violations, police suspect rights, and forced hospitalization in psychiatric hospitals.

📕 International Activities and Role

• It promotes the domestic application of international human rights standards. The National Human Rights Commission plays a role in introducing and applying international human rights conventions and standards domestically. It requests the government to reflect recommendations from international human rights bodies such as the UN Human Rights Council, the Human Rights Committee, and the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in domestic policies and monitors their implementation. It also evaluates the domestic implementation of international human rights conventions and submits independent opinions to the international community. For example, in international reviews such as the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) of the UN Human Rights Council, it provides objective information about domestic human rights situations to the international community by submitting independent reports separate from government reports. Through these efforts, it strengthens international monitoring of human rights situations in Korea and helps spread international human rights standards domestically.

• It cooperates with human rights institutions around the world. The National Human Rights Commission actively participates in international networks such as the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions (GANHRI) and the Asia Pacific Forum of National Human Rights Institutions (APF) to share experiences and best practices with human rights institutions of other countries. It also conducts technical support and exchange programs for the establishment and capacity building of national human rights institutions in developing countries. For example, it invites staff from human rights institutions in Asian countries such as Mongolia, Myanmar, and Uzbekistan to provide education programs and shares Korea's human rights promotion experiences. This international cooperation not only contributes to global human rights promotion but also helps raise the international status of the Korean Commission. In particular, as a country that has transitioned from authoritarianism to democracy while achieving rapid economic development, Korea can play a role in sharing experiences on balancing human rights and development with other countries.

Main Functions of the National Human Rights Commission

1. Investigation and Remedy of Human Rights Violations and Discrimination: Receiving and investigating complaints, making recommendations
2. Policy Recommendations: Recommending improvements to laws, systems, policies, and practices
3. Human Rights Education: Conducting human rights sensitivity education for public officials, teachers, and general citizens
4. Human Rights Survey: Investigating and researching human rights conditions in various social areas
5. International Cooperation: Cooperating with international human rights organizations, promoting domestic implementation of international human rights norms
6. Human Rights Counseling: Providing human rights violation counseling and legal support connections
7. Human Rights Awareness Promotion: Conducting human rights campaigns, producing promotional materials, and cultural projects such as human rights film festivals
8. Review of National Reports: Providing independent opinions on international human rights treaty implementation reports
9. Recommendation for National Action Plan for Human Rights (NAP): Suggesting directions for government human rights policies
10. Visit and Investigation of Detention and Protection Facilities: Monitoring human rights vulnerable facilities such as prisons and psychiatric hospitals

3️⃣ Independence Controversy and International Evaluation

✅ Background of the National Human Rights Commission Independence Controversy

• Independence is a core value of the National Human Rights Commission. Independence from the government and other power institutions is essential for the National Human Rights Commission to fulfill its role. The Commission is tasked with investigating and criticizing human rights violations by government agencies, so it needs to be able to operate fairly without political pressure or intervention. Independence is the most emphasized element in international standards known as the Paris Principles, determining the credibility and effectiveness of the Commission. However, recent controversies over the Commission's independence have raised concerns domestically and internationally. In particular, as the Commission's stance and policy direction have changed with changes in government, criticism has been raised that the Commission is not free from political influence. Weakening of the Commission's independence can weaken its core function of human rights protection and reduce trust from the public and international community.

• There are major cases of independence controversy. Major cases that have recently sparked independence controversies include the following: First, passive response to investigating human rights violations related to martial law. Civil society organizations criticized the Commission for not actively investigating allegations of human rights violations during the implementation of martial law and for defending the government's position. Second, the decision to guarantee the President's right to defense. Suspicions were raised that the Commission took a position favorable to the government when it made a decision emphasizing the guarantee of the right to defense in a petition case related to the President. Third, the issue of independence in the appointment process of commissioners. Concerns about bias in the Commission's decisions grew as individuals with strong influence from the government and ruling party were appointed as commissioners. Fourth, passive response to controversial human rights issues. There is criticism that the Commission tends to remain silent or delay decisions on some politically sensitive human rights issues. These cases have raised questions about whether the Commission is maintaining true independence from the government.

✅ Significance of the Special Review by the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions (GANHRI)

• Understanding the role of GANHRI and its grading system is necessary. The Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions (GANHRI) is an international network of national human rights institutions worldwide that evaluates the independence and effectiveness of each country's human rights institution and certifies its status. GANHRI evaluates national human rights institutions according to the Paris Principles and assigns grades A, B, or C. Grade A means an institution that fully complies with the Paris Principles, Grade B means one that partially complies, and Grade C means one that does not comply. The Korean National Human Rights Commission has maintained Grade A since 2004. Human rights institutions that receive Grade A are given the authority to have a voice and actively participate in international human rights bodies such as the UN Human Rights Council. On the other hand, if downgraded to Grade B, the role and status in international human rights bodies are reduced, and domestic and international credibility is also damaged. Therefore, GANHRI's grade evaluation is not just a symbol but an important factor that has a substantial impact on the international activities and influence of human rights institutions.

• Understanding the special review procedure and its meaning is important. While GANHRI conducts regular accreditation reviews every 5 years, it can conduct a special review in cases of particular concern. A special review is an exceptional procedure implemented when it is determined that there has been a serious change in the independence or effectiveness of the human rights institution in question. The designation of the Korean Commission for special review this time follows the submission of reports expressing concerns about the decline in the Commission's independence by domestic and international civil society organizations to GANHRI. During the special review process, the Commission will submit materials about its independence and activities, and GANHRI will review them and decide whether to maintain or adjust the grade. Being designated for special review itself means that there is serious concern about the Commission's independence in the international community. If the Commission fails to maintain Grade A and is downgraded to Grade B, this would be an official recognition of a decline in the international evaluation of Korea's human rights situation and institutions, which could have a negative impact on the national status.

✅ Tasks and Prospects for Strengthening Independence

• Institutional measures to strengthen independence are needed. The following institutional improvements are needed to strengthen the independence of the National Human Rights Commission: First, ensuring transparency and diversity in the commissioner selection process is important. Institutional mechanisms are needed to ensure that individuals with political independence and human rights expertise are selected in the process of recommending commissioner candidates. Second, the budget and organizational independence of the Commission should be strengthened. Budget independence needs to be guaranteed so that the Commission's activities are not constrained by government budget control or organizational restructuring. Third, the implementation of the Commission's decisions needs to be strengthened. Currently, the Commission's recommendations have no legal binding force, resulting in low implementation rates, so institutional mechanisms to enforce the implementation of recommendations need to be established. Fourth, the independence guarantee provisions need to be strengthened through amendments to the National Human Rights Commission Act. Legal grounds need to be strengthened to clearly guarantee the Commission's independence and block government intervention.

• Strengthening cooperation with civil society is important. Cooperation with civil society is essential to enhance the independence and effectiveness of the National Human Rights Commission. First, communication channels with civil society should be expanded. Regular dialogue and cooperation systems with human rights NGOs, academia, and expert groups need to be established. Second, active response to human rights issues is necessary. Courageous activities are required to actively voice opinions from a human rights perspective, even on politically sensitive issues if necessary. Third, transparent information disclosure and open operation are important. Information about the Commission's activities and decisions needs to be transparently disclosed, and open operation methods that expand citizen participation are necessary. Fourth, the application of international human rights standards domestically should be strengthened. The role of actively applying and spreading international human rights norms and standards to domestic situations needs to be further strengthened. Through these efforts, the Commission will be able to maintain its independence while serving as a bridge for human rights between the government and civil society.

4️⃣ Related Terms Explanation

🔎 Paris Principles

• The Paris Principles are international standards regarding the status and role of national human rights institutions.
• The Paris Principles are principles regarding the status of national human rights institutions adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1993, presenting standards that effective national human rights institutions should meet. These principles contain guidelines on the independence, pluralism, authority and responsibility, and functional capacity of national human rights institutions. In terms of independence, they emphasize legal, operational, and financial independence, and specify that institutions should be able to operate independently without government interference. In terms of pluralism, they emphasize that members of human rights institutions should include individuals from diverse backgrounds to represent various sectors of society. In terms of authority and responsibility, they stipulate that institutions should have the authority to carry out a wide range of activities such as investigating human rights violations, recommending policies, and conducting human rights education and promotion. The Paris Principles serve as the standard by which GANHRI evaluates each country's human rights institution, and grades A, B, or C are assigned based on how well these principles are observed. The Korean National Human Rights Commission has maintained Grade A since its establishment, being evaluated as a human rights institution that well observes the Paris Principles.

🔎 Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions (GANHRI)

• GANHRI is an international network of national human rights institutions from around the world.
• The Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions (GANHRI) is an international cooperation body of national human rights institutions worldwide that promotes capacity building and cooperation among national human rights institutions. GANHRI was established in 1993 and initially operated under the name International Coordinating Committee of National Human Rights Institutions (ICC) before changing to its current name in 2016. The main roles of this organization are accreditation work evaluating each country's human rights institution's compliance with the Paris Principles and assigning grades, promoting cooperation and information sharing among national human rights institutions, and supporting the participation of national human rights institutions in the international human rights system. GANHRI works closely with international human rights bodies such as the UN Human Rights Council and human rights treaty bodies, and supports national human rights institutions to effectively operate in the international human rights system. Accreditation evaluations are conducted regularly every 5 years, and special reviews can be conducted if particular concerns are raised. National human rights institutions that receive Grade A can exercise more authority and influence in the international arena, such as having an independent right to speak at the UN Human Rights Council. Currently, about 80 out of approximately 120 national human rights institutions worldwide are members of GANHRI, with about half receiving Grade A.

5️⃣ Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Q: What types of petitions can be filed with the National Human Rights Commission?

A: Two main types of petitions can be filed with the National Human Rights Commission. First, human rights violation petitions. These can be filed when there are basic rights violations by public institutions such as national institutions, local governments, schools at all levels, and public service-related organizations. Examples include excessive police suppression, cruel treatment in detention facilities, violence in the military, and privacy violations by public officials. Second, discrimination petitions. These can be filed when facing discrimination based on gender, disability, age, race, country of origin, sexual orientation, etc., in areas such as employment, use of goods, services, and facilities, and education. This includes discrimination not only in public institutions but also in the private sector. Petitions can be filed through various methods such as writing, visiting, phone, fax, email, and internet, and not only the individual themselves but also a third party can file a petition on behalf of someone. Additionally, the Commission can also investigate on its own initiative for serious human rights violations or discriminatory acts.

Q: How can I appeal a decision by the National Human Rights Commission?

A: Methods for appealing a decision by the National Human Rights Commission vary depending on the type of decision. First, it is possible to file an objection against a decision to dismiss a petition. If the Commission dismisses a petition (concludes without review), an objection can be filed within 30 days of being notified of the decision. The objection must be made in writing with specific reasons. Second, there is no separate objection procedure for decisions to reject or recommend. In this case, if there is new evidence, a new petition can be filed for the same issue. Third, if it is determined that there are legal defects such as violations of administrative procedure law in the Commission's investigation or decision process, administrative appeals or administrative litigation can also be filed. However, since the Commission's decisions themselves have a recommendatory nature without legal binding force, they are often difficult to be subject to administrative litigation. Fourth, separate legal remedies such as civil lawsuits, criminal complaints, or administrative litigation can be pursued for the original human rights violations or discriminatory acts. Petitions to the Commission and court litigation are separate procedures and can be pursued simultaneously or sequentially.

Q: Why do the recommendations of the National Human Rights Commission have no legal binding force?

A: The reasons why the recommendations of the National Human Rights Commission have no legal binding force can be explained in several aspects. First, due to the independent and neutral nature of the Commission. The Commission is an independent national body, not a judicial institution, and plays a role in bringing about social change through recommendations from a human rights perspective rather than legal judgments. It emphasizes activities based on moral and ethical persuasion rather than legal enforcement. Second, for flexible and broad human rights protection. If there were legal binding force, strict evidence and procedures would be required, making it difficult to consider the complex context and various aspects of human rights violations. The recommendation format allows for a more flexible and comprehensive approach. Third, it follows the general practice of international human rights bodies. Most national human rights institutions and international human rights bodies also use recommendations as their main tool, and this is a method recognized in the Paris Principles. Fourth, it emphasizes voluntary compliance and social consensus. It pursues sustainable change through awareness changes and voluntary improvements in human rights rather than enforcement. However, to enhance the effectiveness of recommendations, the Commission uses methods such as monitoring implementation of recommendations, public disclosure through media, and reporting to the National Assembly, and some argue that stronger implementation power should be given to the Commission for important human rights violations.

Q: What are the differences between the National Human Rights Commission and the courts?

A: While the National Human Rights Commission and the courts share the common goal of protecting human rights, they differ in several aspects. First, differences in nature and status. Courts are constitutional institutions that constitute the judiciary and exercise judicial power, whereas the Commission is an independent body not belonging to any branch of government—legislative, judicial, or executive—established for the special purpose of protecting and promoting human rights. Second, differences in authority and effectiveness of decisions. Court judgments have legal binding force and are enforceable, whereas the Commission's decisions have a recommendatory nature and act as moral and political pressure. Third, differences in accessibility and procedures. Petitions can be filed with the Commission free of charge with simplified procedures, and third-party petitions are possible, whereas courts involve litigation costs and require strict litigation procedures. Fourth, differences in judgment criteria. Courts judge based on positive law, whereas the Commission considers not only the Constitution and laws but also international human rights norms and universal values of human rights more broadly. Fifth, differences in remedy methods. Courts mainly provide ex post facto remedies for violations of individual rights, whereas the Commission emphasizes not only individual remedies but also preventive and structural approaches such as system improvements, human rights education, and awareness improvement. In this way, the Commission and courts have different characteristics and approaches, constituting a complementary human rights protection system.