초청장:ICC승인소위 권고이행 토론회 초청장.pdf

http://www.humanrights.go.kr/common/board/fildn_new.jsp?fn=1421990268244.pdf

 

자료집:

[편집]ICC 승인소위 권고의 실효적 이행을 위한 토론회(1.30 최종수정)-보이스아이.pdf

 


ICC 승인소위의 권고를 실효적으로 이행하기 위한 방안을 모색하기 위하여 다음과 같이 토론회를 개최합니다.

 

토론회에서는 ICC 승인소위 권고의 의미를 검토하고 권고를 실효적으로 위한 방안을 다자간 논의를 통해 모색할 예정이오니 관심있으신 분들의 많은 참석 부탁드립니다.

 

ㅇ 일 시 : 2015. 1. 29. 14:00~17:00

ㅇ 장 소 : 프레지던트 호텔 31층 슈베르트 홀

ㅇ 주 최 : 국가인권위원회

 

토론회 내용
ICC 승인소위 권고의 의미
| 주요 논의사항 |
. ICC 승인소위의 최근 권고 경향
. ICC 승인소위 권고의 배경
ICC 승인소위 권고의 실효적 이행을 위한 방안
| 주요 논의사항 |
. ICC 승인소위의 권고를 이행하기 위한 국가인권위원회의 노력 및 경과
. 인권위원 인선 시 광범위한 참여와 협의를 증진할 수 있는 실효적 방안 논의

 

13:30~14:00

•등록

ICC 승인소위 권고의 의미 및 실효적 이행방안
 

14:00 ~16:30
• 좌 장 - 박경서 (대한민국 초대 인권대사)
• 발 제 - 심상돈 (국가인권위원회 정책교육국장)
• 토 론 - 김병주 (대한변협 국제인권특별위원장)
- 신수경 (새사회연대 대표)
- 이보라 (장하나의원실 보좌관)
- 오창익 (인권연대 사무국장)
- 제철웅 (한양대학교 교수)
- 조규범 (국회입법조사처 조사관)

 

16:30~17:00

• 종합토론 및 질의응답


출처: http://www.humanrights.go.kr/04_sub/body01.jsp?SEQ_ID=610393&flag=VIEW&m_link_url=04_sub/body01.jsp&m_id1=72&m_id2=74&m_id3=200&m_name1=위원회활동&m_name2=공지사항&m_name3=일반공지=일반공지

In Security Council, UN officials urge renewed engagement with DPR Korea on human rights

 

 안보리에서 UN 관리들 DPRK에 재차 관여할 것 촉구

 

 

A wide view of the Security Council during a briefing on the situation in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK). UN Photo/Loey Felipe

 

22 December 2014 – Despite a grim litany of human rights abuses committed against its own people and ongoing provocations to global peace and security, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) has shown signs of compliance with human rights mechanisms prompting hopes that the Asian nation may one day yield to the call for full accountability and reform, two senior United Nations officials stated today.

Briefing the Security Council on the situation in the DPRK, Assistant Secretary-General for Human Rights Ivan Šimonović highlighted the “widespread and systematic” crimes perpetrated by the Pyongyang Government, as detailed in a recent report produced by the UN Commission of Inquiry on human rights in the DPRK.

Released in February, the 400-page report, culled from first-hand testimony from victims and witnesses, details “unspeakable atrocities” committed in the country spanning murder, enslavement, torture, rape, forced starvation and disappearances which, Mr. Šimonović said, in many instances “constitute crimes against humanity.”

“Rarely has such an extensive charge-sheet of international crimes been brought to this Council’s attention,” he told the 15-member body, which decided in an 11-2-2 vote at the outset of the meeting to put the issue on its provisional agenda.

“It documents a totalitarian system that is characterized by brutally enforced denial of the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, as well as the rights to freedom of opinion, expression, information and association.”

In its report, the Commission found that the DPRK “displays many attributes of a totalitarian State,” with State surveillance permeating private lives and virtually no expression critical of the political system going undetected – or unpunished. Military spending – predominantly on hardware and the development of weapons systems and the nuclear programme – has always been prioritized, even during periods of mass starvation, the report added.

Referring to a 2013 survey conducted by the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and World Food Programme (WFP), Mr. Šimonović explained that 84 per cent of households in the DPRK were not consuming enough food. Moreover, he noted, the State’s political prison-camp system – which the Commission estimated contained up to 120,000 people – imposed deliberate starvation, forced labour, executions and torture upon its inmates.

The UN official also reaffirmed the Commission of Inquiry’s suggestion that the DPRK’s human rights situation and the security situation in the region were inextricably linked.

“Comprehensive human rights violations by the DPRK have had a significant impact on regional peace and security, from international abductions and enforced disappearances to trafficking and the outflow of desperate refugees,” he continued. “If we are to reduce tension in the region, there must be movement towards real respect for human rights in the DPRK.”

Nonetheless, Mr. Šimonović voiced optimism that a reversal in the status quo was still possible amid “promising new signs” of the DPRK authorities’ engagement with international human rights mechanisms. The country’s representatives had engaged productively with the UN Human Rights Council’s Universal Periodic Review and held an “unprecedented” meeting with the UN Special Rapporteur. At the same time, he said, Pyongyang had reopened investigations into alleged abductions of Japanese nationals.

“All these developments may present an opportunity for real change,” he stated. “Other countries in the region have shown in the recent past that it is possible to dismantle deep-seated structures of repression and receive assistance in reform, leading to new recognition and standing in the international community.”

Also briefing the Council was Assistant Secretary-General for Political Affairs Tayé-Brook Zerihoun, who agreed, noting that the situation provided an opening to restart credible dialogue in order to help overcome the current standoff on the Korean Peninsula.

“These signals of engagement offer an important opportunity for the United Nations and the wider international community to redouble efforts towards building trust, dialogue and cooperation on all tracks,” Mr. Zerihoun declared. “It is also an opportunity for the DPRK to work with the international community to improve the human rights situation and the living conditions of the people of the country.”

For his part, Mr. Šimonović called for greater Council engagement on the situation in the DPRK now that it had been presented with the Commission’s report in order to advance what he said were “two crucial goals: accountability and engagement for reform” in the country.

“Concerted actions by the international community can have a powerful deterrent effect and may begin to change the policy of the DPRK,” he said, adding that the UN body should continue to “carefully” monitor developments in order to see whether engagement will lead to real change or whether it should take action by referral to the International Criminal Court and by adopting targeted sanctions.

“The people of the DPRK have endured decades of suffering and cruelty. They need your protection. And the cause of justice, peace and security in the region requires your leadership.”


Source: http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=49667#.VJjjHBePkU

UN Security Council

7353rd Meeting

Provisional Agenda: The situation in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea

 

22 December 2014

 

UN 안전보장이사회

제7353차 회의

잠정 의제: DPRK에서의 상황

 

2014. 12. 22.

 

Public meeting in connection with the letter dated 5 December 2014 from the representatives of Australia, Chile, France, Jordan, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Republic of Korea, Rwanda, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council (S/2014/872).

 

http://webtv.un.org/meetings-events/security-council/watch/the-situation-in-the-democratic-peoples-republic-of-korea-security-council-7353rd-meeting/3958194597001

 

 

[Audio: English Interpretation/음성: 영어 통역]

http://downloads.unmultimedia.org/radio/library/ltd/mp3/2014/1271988.mp3

 

Keywords: DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF KOREA, JEFFREY FELTMAN, IVAN SIMONOVIC, HUMAN RIGHTS, CYBER SECURITY

 

 

[Excerpts/발췌]

 

http://www.unmultimedia.org/tv/unifeed/2014/12/un-dprk-16

 

The UN Security Council today kicked off a debate on  human rights in the Peoples' Democraticp People’s Republic of Korea, with a call that a case be referred to the International Criminal Court.

 

[Excerpts/발췌]

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQEy9IBehfA

 

Statement by H.E. Mr. OH Joon, Permanent Representative of the Republic of Korea to the United Nations

 

오준 주유엔 대한민국 대사 발언


 

Letter (S/2014/872)

 

S/2014/872

Distr.: General

5 December 2014

Original: English

 

Letter dated 5 December 2014 from the representatives of Australia, Chile, France, Jordan, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Republic of Korea, Rwanda, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council

 

 

         We the undersigned members of the Security Council — Australia, Chile, France, Jordan, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Republic of Korea, Rwanda, the United Kingdom and the United States — are deeply concerned about the situation in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

          We are particularly concerned by the scale and gravity of human rights violations detailed in the comprehensive report undertaken by the Human Rights Council commission of inquiry on human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (A/HRC/25/63), as contained in document S/2014/276. These violations threaten to have a destabilizing impact on the region and the maintenance of international peace and security.

          Therefore, we write to request that the situation in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea be formally placed on the Council’s agenda without prejudice to the item on non-proliferation in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. We request a meeting of the Security Council on the situation in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, pursuant to rule 2 of the Council’s provisional rules of procedure, and request that a senior official from the Secretariat and a senior official from the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights formally brief the Council under that agenda item, which will enable Council members to receive further information from the Secretariat on this situation and its implications for international peace and security.

                 We would be grateful if the present letter could be circulated as a document of the Security Council, with a view to considering this agenda item as early as possible in the month of December. 


Security Council Media Stakeout

 2014. 12. 22.

 

 안보리 기자회견

 

2014. 12. 22.


Informal comments to the media by H.E. Mr. OH Joon, Permanent Representative of the Republic of Korea to the United Nations on the situation of Human Rights in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK)

 

오준 주유엔 대한민국 대표부 대사

 

Informal comments to the media by Assistant Secretary-General for Human Rights, Ivan Šimonović, on the situation of Human Rights in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK)

 

이반 시모노비치 인권담당 사무차장보

 

http://webtv.un.org/meetings-events/security-council/watch/ivan-Šimonović-on-the-situation-of-human-rights-in-the-democratic-peoples-republic-of-korea-security-council-media-stakeout-22-december-2014/3957338562001

 

 

Ban Ki-moon on the situation of Human Rights in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea

 

반기문 UN 사무총장

 

http://webtv.un.org/topics-issues/watch/ban-ki-moon-on-the-situation-of-human-rights-in-the-democratic-peoples-republic-of-korea-media-stakeout-22-december-2014/3956868844001


[Media - Press encounters]

Off-the-Cuff

Secretary-General's press encounter on Ebola (full transcript)

New York, 22 December 2014

 

(...)

Q: Secretary-General, the Security Council will later be holding its first ever meeting on the situation of human rights in North Korea. It’s an issue you’re well acquainted on. Can you tell us in your view how the human rights situation in North Korea should be an issue of international concern?

SG: I’m aware of this and I’ve been closely following this situation on the DPRK [Democratic People’s Republic of Korea]’s human rights issues.

Speaking broadly in general terms, human rights is one of the three pillars of the United Nations Charter and that should be the basis of all our work. When there is no human rights promotion and protection, there cannot be, it’s very difficult to think about political stability as well as sustainable development. That is why human rights should be given the highest priority for any countries in dealing with United Nations principles. When there is a serious, gross violation of human rights, then it can create a lot of movement of people fleeing the countries, and it creates refugee issues and [displacement] problems. Then, it affects the political stability and it affects development. Therefore, the United Nations regards this with the highest priority on protecting human rights. I am closely following what kind of decision the Security Council will take on this matter.


[Meetings Coverage and Press Releases/회의취재 및 보도자료]

 

22 December 2014

 

SC/11720

 

Security Council, in Divided Vote, Puts Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s Situation on Agenda following Findings of Unspeakable Human Rights Abuses

 

안보리, DPRK의 상황을 의제로 상정

7353rd Meeting (PM)

 

Concerted action by the international community was needed following a Human Rights Council report on appalling, systematic abuses in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, high United Nations officials told the Security Council today, following a procedural vote of 13 in favour to 2 against (China, Russian Federation), with 2 abstentions (Chad, Nigeria) that put the situation on the body’s agenda.

“Rarely has such an extensive charge-sheet of international crimes been brought to this Council’s attention,” Assistant Secretary-General for Human Rights, Ivan Šimonović said, during the first meeting under the new agenda item that was decoupled with that concerning non-proliferation.  Today’s meeting also heard from Assistant Secretary-General for Political Affairs, Taye-Brook Zerihoun.

The meeting was requested in a letter sent to the Council President by 10 of its members (document S/2014/872) expressing concern about the “the scale and gravity of human rights violations” described in the report of the Commission of Inquiry established by the Human Rights Council (document S/2014/276) and its impact on international peace and security.

A resolution to submit the Commission report to the Security Council was adopted by the General Assembly on 18 December, following action by its Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural).  The resolution encouraged the Council to consider referral of the situation to the International Criminal Court, as well as targeted sanctions against those who contributed to what the Commission had called “crimes against humanity”.

At this afternoon’s meeting, Mr. Šimonović said that the report described murder, extermination, disappearances, enslavement and rape, forced abortions and other sexual violence, with victims targeted on political, religious, racial and gender grounds.  “The report documents a totalitarian system that is characterized by brutally enforced denial of the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, as well as the rights to freedom, expression, information of association,” he stated.

Describing a loyalty rating system in the country, mass denial of food and other abuses contained in the report, he said that the Commission expressed its deepest horror at the country’s prison camp system, where, it estimated, hundreds of thousands had perished and some 100,000 were currently being held.

Noting that the Commission of Inquiry had highlighted the connections between the human rights situation in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and security in the region, he said the sustained military focus and nuclear priority of the Government had been pursued at the expense of the well-being of its people.  “If we are to reduce tension in the region, there must be movement towards real respect for human rights in the [Democratic People’s Republic of Korea].  This is deserving of the Security Council’s fullest attention and action.”

At the same time, he noted new signs of engagement between that country and international human rights mechanisms and bilateral negotiations with Japan on alleged abductions of Japanese nationals, which were an opportunity for real change.  The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) would support such progress, he pledged, urging that the Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea be invited to visit without preconditions.

The Commission of Inquiry report, he said, would be followed up by a field-based structure in Seoul to serve as a hub for documentation, technical assistance and advocacy to advance accountability and improve human rights in that country.

The report had been presented to the Council in the context of international criminal law, he said, adding that the 15-member body could advance two crucial goals:  accountability and engagement for reform.  He encouraged it to “carefully monitor developments in the coming months to see whether engagement leads to real change, or should take further action”.

Assistant Secretary-General Zerihoun said that, aside from the Commission’s report, the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation had issued a report alleging that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea was responsible for a recent cyber attack targeting Sony Pictures Entertainment.  While the United Nations was not privy to information on which the Bureau’s conclusions were based, the rise in the incidence and severity of cyber attacks was of increasing concern.

He concluded:  “It is not just the nuclear issue that deserves international attention and action,” and with that, he urged the Security Council to consider the wider implications of the reported grave human rights situation.

Agreeing that recent engagement offered an opportunity for redoubled efforts towards trust, dialogue and cooperation on all tracks, he said Member States should increase humanitarian assistance to the country.  He also encouraged a resumption of credible dialogue and meaningful engagement.  That would help overcome the standoff and go hand in hand with efforts to ensure accountability.

Before the procedural vote this afternoon, China’s representative, explaining why he and the Russian representative had objected to the agenda item, said that the Council was not the forum to take up human rights issues, which themselves should not be politicized.  Issues on the Korean peninsula were sensitive and the additional focus would hamper the Council’s efforts in peace and security there.

Also speaking before the vote was Australia’s representative, who said that the magnitude of the violations depicted a situation that threatened to destabilize the region.  That was why his country, along with 10 other Council members, had sent the letter to the Council president requesting that the situation be placed on the agenda, without prejudice to the item on non-proliferation.

Following the briefings, all Council members took the floor.  Some mentioned the cyber-attack issue, but most that had requested the meeting described horrors included in the report and urged the Council to refer the situation to the International Criminal Court and consider targeted sanctions.  They urged the body to stay seized of the issue and take action as appropriate.  Speakers described the report as heart-breaking and yearned for change.

Those speakers urged the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to take the opportunity to improve the situation themselves, but, like the representative of the United Kingdom, held that, if it failed to hold violators to account, the international community must be ready to do so.  Chad’s representative, in his national capacity, called for prudence before action was taken too hastily.  The Russian Federation’s representative stated that the Council must stop taking on issues outside its purview, of which this meeting was an example.

Also speaking today were the representatives of the United States, France, Nigeria, Luxembourg, Jordan, China, Chile, Rwanda, Lithuania, Argentina and Republic of Korea.

The meeting began at 3:08 p.m., was suspended at 3:15 p.m., resumed at 3:22 p.m. and ended at 5:10 p.m.

Statements

GARY QUINLAN (Australia) described the meeting as an historic step forward for the international community’s efforts to consider the situation in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and its broader implications.  It also sent a vital message to the people there that the world was aware of their suffering and stood in solidarity with them.  The Council recognized that the dangerous threat to international peace and security posed by that regime was not limited to its weapons programmes and proliferation, but also flowed from its atrocious treatment of its people.  Australia strongly disagreed with those who asserted that the Council had no business considering the issue.  Human rights violations of the type and scale being seen in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea had reverberations beyond that country and amounted to a rejection of global norms that underpinned stable societies and undermined peaceful inter-State relations.

With the Commission of Inquiry’s report, he said, the world now had a comprehensive, evidence-based assessment of the systematic, widespread and gross human rights violations being committed by that regime, which compelled a response.  By submitting the report to the Council for consideration and action, General Assembly members recognized that the Council had a responsibility to ensure accountability for the crimes being committed.  He urged countries having the most influence on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to press the case for fundamental change there.

SAMANTHA POWER (United States) said today’s meeting reflected a growing consensus that the widespread and systematic human rights violations committed by Democratic People’s Republic of Korea threated international peace and security.  The Commission had conducted more than 200 interviews and held public hearings in which more than 80 witnesses had given testimony.  It had found that systematic, widespread and gross human rights violations were being committed; the evidence had provided “reasonable grounds” that crimes against humanity had been committed, pursuant to State policies.  A former guard testified that the baby of a political prisoner had been cooked and fed to animals — abuse that fit a pattern of testimonies of sadistic acts.  An estimated 80,000 to 120,000 people were being held in prison camps where such crimes occurred.

She urged the Council to take up the issue because the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s response to the Commission’s report showed it was sensitive to criticism of its human rights record, threatening that efforts to hold it accountable would be met with “catastrophic” consequences.  If the Government wanted to be taken off the Council’s agenda, it should acknowledge its systematic violations, dismantle political prison camps, allow free, unfettered access of independent human rights observers and hold perpetrators accountable.  The Council must consider the recommendation that the situation be referred to the International Criminal Court.

FRANÇOIS DELATTRE (France) welcomed the Commission’s report, which documented cases in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea of murder, arbitrary detentions, torture, rape, forced disappearances, impeded humanitarian access and use of famine.  Hundreds of thousands of political prisoners had died in the camps through the years, and today, the Council had convened to hear the cries of those living under a blood-thirsty regime.  Its authorities should be held accountable for their crimes, as that was a moral obligation of the international community.  The Council should consider the Commission’s recommendation to refer the situation to the Criminal Court.  The regime’s violations threatened international peace and security, and destabilized the region.  The severity, scale and nature of the violations had revealed a “unique” State in terms of terror.  Nuclear blackmail could not dissuade the Council from considering the situation.  Pyongyang must take responsibility, release political prisoners and open itself to international media, non-governmental organizations and the United Nations.

USMAN SARKI (Nigeria), noting that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea had participated in the first and second cycles of the Universal Periodic Review, encouraged that Government to strengthen its engagement with the Human Rights Council and treaty bodies, with a view to promoting and protecting its citizens’ rights.

SYLVIE LUCAS (Luxembourg) said the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea had methodically flouted international law, and since 2006, conducted ballistic tests, regularly threatening nuclear strikes.  Just as serious, the country had repeatedly violated the most basic rights of its people, as documented in the “damning” Commission of Inquiry report on 7 January.  The text outlined crimes against humanity, which fell within the purview of the Rome Statute.  Respect for human rights was a hallmark of a stable society willing to live peacefully among its neighbours.  The Council should consider the Commission’s recommendation to refer the matter to the Court.  The Council also should consider taking targeted sanctions against those responsible for crimes against humanity.  She invited the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to authorize a visit of the Special Rapporteur and encouraged the Council to be regularly briefed on the situation there.

DINA KAWAR (Jordan) agreed that the report depicted a menace to international peace and security when combined with the country’s continued nuclear and ballistic missile activity.  The Council should make every effort to put an end to the abuses, as well as to the threat of use of nuclear weapons.  She called on the country to take prompt action to meet the concerns of the international community by inviting the Special Rapporteur and facilitating humanitarian aid.

MARK LYALL GRANT (United Kingdom) said the appalling contents of the report showed a paranoid, callous and dangerous regime, and a totalitarian State without parallel in the modern world.  The Council could not ignore such grave findings.   He welcomed signs that the international community was increasingly paying attention to the country.  “If the [Democratic People’s Republic of Korea] fails to hold violators to account, the international community must be ready to do so,” he stated.  He supported appropriate Council action to ensure accountability, including consideration of a referral to the International Criminal Court.  Countries untethered from the rule of law presented a threat to peace and security, he added.  The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea must address the situation and take the first positive moves to improve it.  The Council must remain seized of the matter.

LIU JIEYI (China) reiterated the position that China was against politicization of human rights issues, and that the Security Council was not the appropriate forum for their discussion.  As a neighbour of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, China was had great interest in reducing tensions in the Korean peninsula and was working for the denuclearization of the region, by, among other efforts, encouraging the return to six-party talks.

CRISTIÁN BARROS MELET (Chile) said that his country had signed onto the request for the meeting and believed it was timely and necessary.  The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea had dismissed the allegations of violations in the report, threatening at the same time to perform a new nuclear test.  A broader focus on the situation must be maintained with greater pressure brought to bear, not only on the nuclear issue, but on bringing an end to the impunity of those accountable.  He urged the country to allow a visit of the Special Rapporteur and called on the Council to remain seized of the matter.

OLIVIER NDUHUNGIREHE (Rwanda) said that, as a country that, in 1994, had suffered the worst human rights violations, it valued today’s meeting to examine such gross violations.  The three pillars of the responsibility to protect outlined the State’s primary duty to protect its people from the most serious abuses, with the international community obliged to use appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian and other means to do so.  If a State failed in its duty, the international community must be prepared to take action, in line with the Charter.  The Council should engage the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea on the basis of those pillars.  Rwanda was encouraged that that country had indicated a willingness to allow the Special Rapporteur’s access to its territory and hoped that would be pursued.  It was important for the Council to receive information from the Secretariat on the situation and its implications for international peace and security.  Rwanda supported the Commission’s recommendation to foster inter-Korean dialogue and urged all actors to engage in good faith to create favourable conditions for resuming political talks.  He hoped the Council would remain seized of the matter.

RAIMONDA MURMOKAITĖ (Lithuania) said that those responsible to protect the rights of North Koreans had ruthlessly enforced almost complete denial of their freedoms, with extermination, enslavement, torture, forced abortion and prolonged starvation.  Even as mass starvation was claiming thousands of lives, the State had given precedence to military spending.  There were indications that the Government was ready to engage in a human rights dialogue, but such signals needed to be followed by concrete action.  Lithuania welcomed the recent resolution of the General Assembly on the human rights situation in that country and encouraged the Council to follow suit and take appropriate action to ensure accountability, including through possible referral of the situation to the International Criminal Court, and consideration of the scope for effective targeted sanctions.  The crimes against humanity in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea would continue as long as the policies, institutions and patterns of impunity there remained in place.

MARÍA CRISTINA PERCEVAL (Argentina) said her Government had voted in favour of the resolutions of the Human Rights Council and Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural), both of which condemned the gross, widespread and systematic human rights violations committed in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.  The inclusion of the issue on today’s agenda was outside the mandate of the Council, which would not contribute to the correct functioning of the United Nations system to extend its range of action beyond maintenance of international peace and security.  Today’s exception should not set a precedent.  She voiced concern over the Commission’s conclusion of widespread human rights violations, as well as the existence of crimes against humanity.  She also underscored the importance of diplomacy and political negotiations, with the goal of declaring the Korean peninsula free of nuclear weapons, adding that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea must protect and ensure the human rights of its people.

EVGENIY ZAGAYNOV (Russian Federation) said his Government was against the convening of today’s meeting, as it could lead to negative consequences for the effectiveness of the Council and other United Nations bodies.  Human rights issues should be considered in the Human Rights Council, which was created for that purpose.  Today’s discussion was unlikely to promote dialogue with the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea on the issue, for which the authorities had earlier stated they would be ready.

OH JOON (Republic of Korea) said that, despite international efforts to address human rights issues in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, the situation had continued to worsen, ultimately warranting the Council’s attention. This year’s Assembly resolution on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea was unique in that it contained a recommendation on the Council’s role in considering such matters.  The decision to place the situation on the Council’s agenda was a starting point for further discussion and engagement.  Human rights violations in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea were so systematic and widespread that they posed a threat to regional and international peace and security.

He urged the Council’s attention to the grave situation in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, citing the Commission’s finding that many of the violations amounted to crimes against humanity.  The Council must play a crucial role in ensuring accountability, including through referring the situation to the Court.  His Government took serious note of the United States’ statement that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea was behind a cyber attack on Sony Pictures.  Addressing the human rights issue was essential for maintaining peace and stability on the peninsula and in the region.  He hoped Pyongyang would engage with the international community through human rights dialogue, including with the Special Rapporteur, and through technical cooperation with the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR).

MAHAMAT ZENE CHERIF (Chad), speaking in his national capacity, noted the massive violations alleged in the report and said the situation was indeed of deep concern if the veracity of the information was established.  At the same time, noting that the country had denied the report and that there had been little access by international observers, he urged prudence, pointing to errors that had been committed in the past due to taking hasty action on the basis of a report.  He called on the country’s representatives to clarify the situation and to allow access for that purpose, as well as to engage in dialogue.


Source:

http://www.unmultimedia.org/radio/library/2014/12/1271988.html

http://www.un.org/press/en/2014/sc11720.doc.htm

http://www.un.org/sg/offthecuff/index.asp?nid=3778

General Assembly decides to refer UN report on human rights in DPR Korea to Security Council

UN 총회, DPRK에서의 인권에 관한 UN 보고서를 안보리에 회부하기로 결정

 

18 December 2014 – Condemning “ongoing systematic, widespread and gross violations of human rights” in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK), the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution today by which it would transmit a UN-backed report probing such violations to the Security Council.

The 400-page report was released in February by the UN Commission of Inquiry on human rights in the DPRK, which was established by the Geneva-based Human Rights Council in March 2013. Documenting in great detail the rights violations committed in the DPRK, the report called for urgent action to address the human rights situation, including referral to the International Criminal Court (ICC).

The resolution adopted today by the General Assembly, acting on the recommendations of its Third Committee (the Assembly’s main body dealing with social, humanitarian and cultural issues) commends the work the Special Rapporteur on human rights in the DPRK and the Commission of Inquiry and decides that the commission’s report should be submitted to the Security Council.

The Assembly encouraged Council members to take appropriate action to ensure accountability, including through consideration of referral of the situation to the ICC and of targeted sanctions against those appearing most responsible for crimes against humanity.

The Assembly resolution, adopted by a recorded vote of 116 in favour to 20 against, with 53 abstentions, lists examples of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, describes a system of political prison camps, the forcible transfer of populations and limitations on movement, as well as violations of rights fundamental freedoms of women, children, and persons with disabilities.

The Assembly expressed its concern that the DPRK Government refuses to recognize the Special Rapporteur’s mandate or to cooperate, continuing not to acknowledge the grave human rights situation in the country, and failing to prosecute those responsible for violations, including those that may amount to crimes against humanity.

Strongly urging the Government of the DPRK to respect human rights and fundamental freedoms, it urges implementation of the commission’s recommendations without delay. It also welcomes the recent willingness expressed by the Government to consider human rights dialogues, technical cooperation with the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and a country visit of the Special Rapporteur.


Source: http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=49648&Cr=&Cr1=#.VJR6BBeMJs

Resolutions

 

결의

 

A/RES/69/1-A/RES/69/...
 

Resolution No.

 

 결의안 번호

Plenary or Cttee.

 

 본회의 또는 위원회

Agenda Item No.

 

 의제 안건 번호

Meeting Record/ Date/ Press Release/ Vote

 

회의기록/일자/보도자료/표결

Draft

 

초안

Topic

 

주제

A/RES/69/188

C.3

68 (c)

A/69/PV.73

A/69/488/Add.3 DR I

Situation of human rights in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea

 

조선민주주의인민공화국에서의 인권상황

18 December 2014

GA/11604

116-20-53

 

 

A/69/PV.73

2014. 12. 18.

GA/11604

 

찬성 116표/반대 20표/기권 53표


General Assembly

69th Session - 73rd Plenary Meeting

 

18 December 2014

 

 

UN 총회

제69차 회기 - 제73차 본회의

 

2014. 12. 18.

 

http://webtv.un.org/meetings-events/general-assembly/watch/general-assembly-73rd-plenary-meeting-69th-session/3951343975001

 

 

[Excerpts/발췌]

http://www.unmultimedia.org/tv/unifeed/2014/12/un-dprk-15

 

The UN General assembly today voted to ask the UN Security Council to refer the human rights situation in the People's Democratic Republic of Korea (DPRK) to the International Criminal Court.


[Third Committee's Report to the Plenary/본회의에 제출하는 제3위원회 보고서]

 

 

A/69/488/Add.3

Item 68 (c):
Human rights situations and reports of special rapporteurs and representatives

 

United Nations

 

A/69/488/Add.3

General Assembly

 

Distr.: General

3 December 2014

 

Original: English

 

 

 

 

Sixty-ninth session

Agenda item 68 (c)

 

 

 

 

 


         *  The report of the Committee on this item is being issued in five parts, under the symbol A/69/488 and Add.1-4.

                 

 

 

Promotion and protection of human rights: human

rights situations and reports of special rapporteurs

and representatives

 

 

Report of the Third Committee*

 

 

Rapporteur: Mr. Ervin Nina (Albania)

 

II. Consideration of proposals

 

 

             A.    Draft resolutions A/C.3/69/L.28 and Rev.1 and amendment thereto contained in document A/C.3/69/L.63

 

 

8.       At the 42nd meeting, on 6 November, the representative of Italy, on behalf of Albania, Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Croatia, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Micronesia (Federated States of), Montenegro, the Netherlands, Norway, Panama, Poland, Portugal, the Republic of Korea, the Republic of Moldova, Romania, San Marino, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America, introduced a draft resolution entitled “Situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea” (A/C.3/69/L.28). Subsequently, Bosnia and Herzegovina joined in sponsoring the draft resolution.

9.       At its 46th meeting, on 18 November, the Committee had before it a revised draft resolution (A/C.3/69/L.28/Rev.1), submitted by the sponsors of draft resolution A/C.3/69/L.28, as well as Botswana, Kiribati, Monaco, Palau, Seychelles, Tuvalu, Ukraine, Uruguay and Vanuatu.

10.    At the same meeting, the representative of Italy made a statement and announced that Maldives, the Marshall Islands, New Zealand and Serbia had joined in sponsoring the draft resolution.

 

                           Action on the amendment contained in document A/C.3/69/L.63

 

11.     At the 46th meeting, on 18 November, the Chair drew the attention of the Committee to the amendment submitted to draft resolution A/C.3/69/L.28/Rev.1, as contained in document A/C.3/69/L.63.

12.    At the same meeting, the representative of Cuba made a statement and orally revised the amendment (see A/C.3/69/SR.46).

13.    The representatives of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, China, Japan, Belarus, the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, the Russian Federation and South Africa made statements in connection with the amendment, as orally revised.

14.    The representative of Italy also made a statement, in which he requested a recorded vote on the amendment, as orally revised.

15.    At the same meeting, the Committee rejected the amendment contained in document A/C.3/69/L.63, as orally revised, by a recorded vote of 77 to 40, with
50 abstentions. The voting was as follows:

In favour:

          Algeria, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Belarus, Bolivia (Plurinational State of), Burundi, China, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Haiti, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Niger, Pakistan, Russian Federation, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands, South Africa, South Sudan, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of), Viet Nam, Zimbabwe.

Against:

          Afghanistan, Albania, Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Benin, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cabo Verde, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kiribati, Latvia, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Maldives, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mexico, Micronesia (Federated States of), Monaco, Montenegro, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Palau, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Somalia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America.

Abstaining:

          Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Bhutan, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Central African Republic, Chad, Colombia, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominican Republic, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Jamaica, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lebanon, Lesotho, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Morocco, Mozambique, Nauru, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Oman, Papua New Guinea, Qatar, Rwanda, Seychelles, Singapore, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, United Republic of Tanzania, Yemen, Zambia.

16.    Before the vote, statements were made by the representatives of Italy, Japan, the Islamic Republic of Iran, the United States of America, Albania, Switzerland (on behalf also of Australia, Austria, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway) and Ecuador; after the vote, a statement was made by the representative of Uruguay (see A/C.3/69/SR.46).

 

                           Action on draft resolution A/C.3/69/L.28/Rev.1

 

17.    At the 47th meeting, on 18 November, the representative of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea made a statement and requested a recorded vote on the draft resolution.

18.    At the same meeting, the Committee adopted draft resolution A/C.3/69/L.28/Rev.1 by a recorded vote of 111 to 19, with 55 abstentions (see para. 36, draft resolution I). The voting was as follows:[1]

In favour:

          Afghanistan, Albania, Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Barbados, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cabo Verde, Canada, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kiribati, Latvia, Lebanon, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Maldives, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Mexico, Micronesia (Federated States of), Monaco, Montenegro, Morocco, Nauru, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Palau, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Rwanda, Samoa, San Marino, Serbia, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Slovakia, Slovenia, Somalia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Tajikistan, Thailand, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Tunisia, Turkey, Tuvalu, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America, Uruguay, Vanuatu.

Against:

          Belarus, Bolivia (Plurinational State of), China, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Ecuador, Egypt, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Myanmar, Oman, Russian Federation, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, Uzbekistan, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of),
Viet Nam, Zimbabwe.

Abstaining:

          Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Bangladesh, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Cameroon, Comoros, Congo, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea, Guyana, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lesotho, Libya, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Singapore, Solomon Islands, South Africa, South Sudan, Suriname, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkmenistan, Uganda, United Republic of Tanzania, Yemen, Zambia.

19.    Before the vote, statements were made by the representatives of Japan, the Syrian Arab Republic, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Cuba, Belarus, the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela and Ecuador; after the vote, statements were made by the representatives of India, Pakistan, Indonesia, Myanmar, Thailand, Zimbabwe, Malaysia, Brazil, the Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Viet Nam, Singapore, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and Norway (see A/C.3/69/SR.47).



         [1]           Subsequently, the delegation of Grenada indicated that it had intended to vote in favour.

 

(...)

 

III. Recommendations of the Third Committee

 

 

36.    The Third Committee recommends to the General Assembly the adoption of the following draft resolutions:

 

 

                     Draft resolution I

                     Situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic

of Korea

(...)


[Meetings Coverage and Press Releases/회의취재 및 보도자료]

 

18 December 2014

 

GA/11604

Adopting 68 Texts Recommended by Third Committee, General Assembly Sends Strong Message towards Ending Impunity, Renewing Efforts to Protect Human Rights

Sixty-ninth session,
73rd & 74th Meetings (AM & PM)

 

Sending a strong message to end impunity and to renew efforts to promote and protect human rights, especially for vulnerable groups, the General Assembly adopted 61 resolutions and seven decisions recommended by its Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) while deferring action on one draft resolution on the situation of human rights in Myanmar pending the issuance of budget implications.

(...)

Recorded votes were requested on a number of drafts, reflecting varying views on a range of topics, including albinism, the right to development and the use of mercenaries.  Among those texts tabled for a vote was a landmark resolution on the human rights situation in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.  By that text, adopted by a recorded vote of 116 in favour to 20 against, with 53 abstentions, the Assembly, for the first time, decided to submit the Special Rapporteur’s report on that country to the Security Council.  Also by the text, the Assembly encouraged the Council to take appropriate action to ensure accountability, including through consideration of referral of the situation in that country to the International Criminal Court and consideration of the scope for effective targeted sanctions against those who appeared to be most responsible for acts that the Commission of Inquiry had said could possibly constitute crimes against humanity.

As in previous years, delegates had differing views on such special rapporteur reports and draft resolutions on specific countries.  Some speakers said the double standards and selectivity of so-called country-specific reports violated human rights and even threatened the right to self-determination.  Some said dialogue was the only way to effectively address human rights concerns.

Explanations of position came from a number of delegations, including those whose countries were the subject of draft resolutions.  The representative of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea said his delegation had rejected the draft resolution on the human rights situation in his country because, in part, it was politically driven and failed to reflect the reality on the ground.  Commenting on the draft text on his country, passed by a vote of 83 in favour to 35 against, with 68 abstentions, Iran’s representative said such reports and draft resolutions were unfairly targeting States.

 

(...)

 

Background

The General Assembly met this morning to take action on draft resolutions and decisions contained in reports of its Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural).

 

(...)

 

Opening Statement

 

(...)

 

Introduction of Reports

ERVIN NINA (Albania), Rapporteur of the Third Committee, introduced its reports as follows:

(...)

He also presented the Committee’s reports on human rights questions, including alternative approaches for improving the effective enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms (document A/69/488/Add.2); human rights situations and reports of special rapporteurs and representatives (document A/69/488.Add.3);

(...)

 

Action on Draft Resolutions

(...)

The Assembly then turned to the Third Committee’s report Human rights situations and reports of special rapporteurs and representatives (document A/69/488/Add.3), containing four draft resolutions covering the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Syria, Myanmar and Iran.  It deferred consideration of a draft resolution on the situation of human rights in Myanmar until the issuance of the pertinent Fifth Committee report.

Speaking in explanation of vote before the votes, the representative of the United Arab Emirates stated that his country was one of the co-sponsors of the resolution on human rights in Syria because it was necessary to put an end to the human rights violations, including killings and arbitrary detentions, suffered by “the brotherly people of Syria”.

Also speaking in explanation of position before the votes, the representative of Syria said that his delegation opposed the draft resolution which criticized the human rights situation in his country.  Some regimes were feeding the violence in Syria.  They were not content with arming terrorist groups; they were establishing military training camps.  Saudi Arabia was the main cause of religious hatred in the region.  The Qatari regime had also provided millions of dollars to terrorist organizations.  The report’s criticism was paradoxical given the violations against women and minorities in those and other States.  He urged all countries to reconsider their positions and vote against the text.

Also speaking in explanation of position before the votes, the representative of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea said that his delegation rejected the draft resolution on human rights situation in his country, because it was “the product of a political plot”.  The European Union and Japan had drafted the text based on the fabricated report of the Commission of Enquiry, which had never visited the country.  They had blocked all possibilities for dialogue and cooperation by forcibly pushing the adoption of the resolution.  Their intention was not the promotion of human rights, but sycophancy and subservience to the United States, which had conducted shocking violations as evidenced by the Central Intelligence Agency torture crimes.

The representative of Iran, in explanation of position before the votes, said that the draft resolution on human rights situation in his country was “political, prejudicial and unbalanced.”  It ignored the fact that Iranian society was a vibrant and multi-voiced society.  It also failed to acknowledge the positive developments in Iran since the beginning of the new Government’s tenure and the constant readiness of the Iranian Government to cooperate with the United Nations human rights mechanisms.  Country-specific resolutions, such as the one before the Assembly, were counterproductive because they increased distrust and damaged the Organization’s credibility.

In explanation of position before the votes, the representative of Cuba said that her country had always opposed country-specific resolutions in the Third Committee because they were politically motivated and contributed nothing to the promotion of human rights.  The Human Rights Council and the Universal Period Review mechanism were the forums in which the human rights situations of all countries should be considered on an equal footing.  The resolution on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea had created a dangerous precedent that threatened the right to self-determination of States.  By referring the issue to the Security Council and the International Criminal Court, the text promoted the sanctioning of countries.

The representative of Algeria, also speaking in explanation of position before the votes, voiced regret at the continued double standards in the proliferation of country-specific resolutions.  Differences on human rights should be resolved through dialogue, not confrontation.  The General Assembly should adopt a new approach that promoted technical cooperation, dialogue and transparency.  Selective resolutions that targeted specific countries undermined the mandate of the Human Rights Council.

In explanation of position before the votes, the representative of Papua New Guinea said that the international community had agreed on the notion that the Human Rights Council had and should continue to underpin the development of human rights.  The Universal Periodic Review process had been an important catalyst in that process around the world.  Papua New Guinea had had three special rapporteurs visit the country to report on various human rights issues.  While the country had not agreed with every aspect of the reports, it had welcomed the scrutiny.  He called on Iran and other countries to allow rapporteurs to visit.  In view of that, his delegation would abstain on the resolution related to Iran.

Also speaking in explanation of vote before the votes, the representative of Saudi Arabia said that the delegate of Syria had referred to his country.  The General Assembly Chair requested that he wait to exercise his right of reply until the end of the consideration of the draft resolutions.

The Assembly then adopted, by a recorded vote of 116 in favour to 20 against, with 53 abstentions, a draft titled “Situation of human rights in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea”.

Also by a recorded vote of 127 in favour to 13 against, with 48 abstentions, it adopted a text titled “Situation of human rights in the Syrian Arab Republic”.

In another recorded vote — 83 in favour to 35 against, with 68 abstentions — the Assembly adopted a draft titled “Situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran”.

In explanation of position after adoption, the representative of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea thanked the delegations that had voted against the resolution regarding his country and stated that the United States was viciously attempting to destroy his nation’s ideology and system.  In the light of that dangerous campaign undertaken, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea would continue to uphold its pride and honour in its socialist system and would do its utmost to defend it.

The representative of El Salvador, also in explanation of position after adoption, said that his delegation had agreed with the text of the draft resolution on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea that had been originally presented, with the exception of paragraph 8.  For constitutional and legal reasons, he noted that he could not support the language in that paragraph.  Given the results of voting on the amendment that would have changed that language, and given that co-sponsoring countries had included elements for more “rapprochement”, he said that his delegation had changed its position and had decided to vote for the resolution.  However, he emphasized that his country was not currently a party to the Rome Statute, and therefore, its vote in favour of the resolution should not be considered as in any way a change of position on that.

Costa Rica’s representative, in explanation of position after the action, said that country-specific assessments should be undertaken and that the Human Rights Council was the forum in which those situations should be discussed and examined.  Furthermore, the Universal Periodic Review was the appropriate mechanism with which to examine human rights.  Cooperation and constructive dialogue and other mechanisms should continue to be part of the way human rights were promoted and protected.

In explanation of position, Sri Lanka’s representative said he had voted against the draft text on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.  He urged that Government to take action to address concerns.  “Name and shame” resolutions were unproductive, he said, adding that a cooperative approach had been proposed, but had not been supported.  The draft text’s reference to encouraging the Security Council’s referral of the issue to the International Criminal Court was “unacceptable”.

 

Right of Reply

(...)

 

Action on Draft Resolutions

(...)


[Voting Record/표결 기록]

 

http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/69/PV.73

 

A/69/PV.73

 

General Assembly
Sixty-ninth session
73rd plenary meeting
 

Thursday, 18 December 2014, 10 a.m.

 

New York

 

(...)

 

(c) Human rights situations and reports of special rapporteurs and representatives


Report of the Third Committee (A/69/488/Add.3)


The Acting President: The Assembly has before it four draft resolutions recommended by the Third Committee in paragraph 36 of its report.
Before proceeding further, I should like to inform members that action on draft resolution III, entitled “Situation of human rights in Myanmar”, is postponed to a later date to allow time for the review of its programme budget implications by the Fifth Committee. The Assembly will take action on draft resolution III as soon as the report of the Fifth Committee on its programme budget implications is available.
I shall now give the floor to representatives who wish to speak in explanation of vote or position on draft resolutions I, II or IV before we take action on the draft resolutions.

 

(...)

 

Mr. An Myong Hun (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea): My delegation would like to state its position on draft resolution I, entitled “Situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea”, as contained in document A/69/488/Add.3, which was submitted by the European Union (EU) and Japan.

My delegation totally rejects this draft resolution because it has nothing to do with the promotion and protection of human rights, but is the product of a political plot and confrontation against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. The European Union and Japan drafted the draft resolution on the basis of a fabricated report of the Commission of Inquiry on Human Rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (A/HRC/25/63), whose members have never been in my country. Let me once again make it clear that the report of the Commission of Inquiry is a document born of a political plot and has no basic attributes or credibility to be recognized as a General Assembly document, as it is based on the fabricated testimonies of a handful of defectors who committed crimes and fled their homeland.

 

We have consistently maintained our position of countering confrontation and giving priority to dialogue and cooperation in the field of human rights, and we have also clarified our willingness to engage in broad-ranging constructive dialogue. However, the European Union and Japan completely blocked all possibilities of cooperation in the field of human rights, including a visit to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea by a Special Rapporteur and a human rights dialogue between the EU and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, by forcibly pushing the adoption of the draft resolution, which does not reflect the reality on the ground. Consequently, the European Union and Japan themselves disclosed that their real intention in submitting a draft resolution was not for the genuine promotion and protection of human rights, but purely as an act of subservience and sycophancy in support of the hostile policy of the United States against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to overthrow our political and social system.

 

If countries sponsoring draft resolution I are really interested in the promotion and protection of human rights, they should address the issue of the grave human rights violations being committed in Western countries, such as the recently revealed Central Intelligence Agency’s crimes of torture committed by the United States in the most brutal and shocking manner. My delegation remains consistent with regard to its principled position of holding a dialogue on cooperation in the field of human rights. However, this delegation will not tolerate any attempt to abuse human rights issues as a tool for overthrowing our social system.

 

Once again, my delegation emphasizes that we strongly reject all the country-specific draft resolutions — not only draft resolution I against my country, but also draft resolutions on the situation of human right in the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Syrian Arab Republic and Myanmar. My delegation firmly believes that all countries will vote against the draft resolution sponsored by the EU and Japan, in line with the principles and universally accepted position to oppose politicization, selectivity and double standards over human rights.

 

(...)

 

Mrs. Moreno Guerra (Cuba) (spoke in Spanish): Cuba has traditionally maintained a principled position against country-specific draft resolutions that aim to condemn developing countries based on politically motivated reasons that have nothing to do with defending human rights and that contribute nothing to that cause. These toxic and selective practices of politicization and applying double standards in the consideration of situations of human rights were the reason that led to the discrediting and dissolution of the Human Rights Commission. The establishment of the Human Rights Council and its Universal Periodic Review mechanism offer the possibility to consider situations of human rights issues in all countries on an equal footing, based on genuine and constructive dialogue.

 

Cuba would like to reiterate that international cooperation based on the principles of objectivity, unconditionality, impartiality and non-selectivity is the only way to effectively promote and protect all human rights. Unfortunately, that is not the goal being pursued today with the draft resolutions against these countries, which are clearly and undoubtedly politically motivated.

 

With regard to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, a dangerous precedent has been established that violates the rights of sovereignty and self-determination of States in referring the issue to the Security Council and, subsequently, to the International Criminal Court. That has a significant negative impact in that it irresponsibly promotes punishment and sanctions on the basis of allegations that have not been proved on the ground. We reiterate that these actions are contradictory to the atmosphere of cooperation and dialogue that is needed in order to strengthen an international system in which all are respected on an equal footing, independently of their wealth or power.

Cuba has roundly opposed country-specific draft resolutions, both in the Third Committee and in the Human Rights Council. In that spirit, we will continue to vote against draft resolutions on the human rights situations in friendly countries, and to disassociate ourselves from the consensus on draft resolutions that are not normally subject to a vote.

We would like to indicate that opposition to these selective and politicized draft resolutions do not prejudge in any way the resolution of the pending issues mentioned in paragraph 3 of the draft resolution, which require a fair and honourable solution with the agreement of all stakeholders.

 

Ms. Mansouri (Algeria): My delegation would like to explain its position before the Assembly takes action on the draft resolutions on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (draft resolution I), the Syrian Arab Republic (draft resolution II) and the Islamic Republic of Iran (draft resolution IV), as contained in the report of the Third Committee (A/69/488/Add.3).


My delegation regrets the continued selectivity, double standards, politicization and proliferation of country-specific draft resolutions, as previously highlighted during the ministerial meeting of the Non-Aligned Movement held in Algiers in May. My delegation strongly believes that differences on human rights issues should be resolved through constructive dialogue, and not through confrontational, politically motivated action. Indeed, practice has demonstrated that country-specific draft resolutions have not contributed to the improvement of human rights situations. They only jeopardize trust and provoke confrontation among Member States by ignoring the principle of impartiality, which should govern human rights situations and mechanisms.


The Assembly should adopt a new cooperative approach to the consideration of human rights in those countries that enables the establishment of dialogue and the development of technical cooperation between the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and the countries concerned in a transparent, fair and equal manner. Moreover, the Universal Periodic Review mechanism should be considered as the primary tool for considering human rights issues, and such discussions should take place in an atmosphere of constructive dialogue within the Human Rights Council. The continued submission of selective draft resolutions that target specific countries is a violation of the principle of universality and objectivity and undermines the mandate of the Human Rights Council. For those reasons, my delegation will abstain in the voting on all country-specific draft resolutions.

 

(...)

 

The Acting President: We will now take decisions on draft resolutions I, II and IV, one by one.


We turn first to draft resolution I, entitled “Situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea”. A recorded vote has been requested.

 

A recorded vote was taken.

 

In favour:

Afghanistan, Albania, Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Barbados, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cabo Verde, Canada, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, El Salvador, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kiribati, Latvia, Lebanon, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Maldives, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Mexico, Micronesia (Federated States of), Monaco, Montenegro, Morocco, Nauru, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Palau, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Rwanda, Samoa, San Marino, Sao Tome and Principe, Serbia, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Slovakia, Slovenia, Somalia, South Sudan, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Tunisia, Turkey, Tuvalu, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America, Uruguay, Vanuatu

 

Against:

Belarus, Bolivia (Plurinational State of), China, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Ecuador, Egypt, Gambia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Myanmar, Oman, Russian Federation, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, Uzbekistan, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of), Viet Nam, Zimbabwe

 

Abstaining:

Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Bangladesh, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Cameroon, Comoros, Congo, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominican Republic, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Guinea, Guyana, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lesotho, Libya, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Singapore, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Suriname, Tajikistan, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkmenistan, Uganda, United Republic of Tanzania, Yemen, Zambia

 

Draft resolution I was adopted by 116 votes to 20, with 53 abstentions (resolution 69/188).

 

(...)

 

The Acting President: I shall now give the floor to delegations that wish to speak in explanation of vote following the voting.

 

Mr. An Mayong Hun (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea): The delegation of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea would like to express its thanks to those delegations that voted against resolution 69/188. My delegation again fully rejects this forcibly adopted resolution against my country. The resolution proves once again that the United States and its followers are ever more viciously resorting to their plot to defame our image and destroy our ideology and system under the pretext of human rights. In the light of the increasingly dangerous human rights campaigns undertaken by hostile forces against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, we will keep in our hearts the pride and honour of the socialist system, which was chosen as being consolidated and developed by our people, and we will work to the utmost to defend it.

 

Mr. Zamora Rivas (El Salvador) (spoke in Spanish): El Salvador would like to explain its vote on resolution 69/188, entitled “Situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea”.


El Salvador abstained in the voting at the time the resolution was adopted in the Third Committee. We would like to express our agreement with the text that was originally presented, with the exception of paragraph 8 for constitutional and legal reasons that do not allow our country to support the paragraph’s language. Accordingly, El Salvador supported the proposed amendment contained in document A/C.3/69/L.63, which aimed to delete paragraph 8. The amendment, which was not adopted, sought to substitute for paragraph 8 language calling for rapprochement and dialogue on human rights issues. Given the outcome of the voting on the amendment and on the text as a whole today, which includes the second part of the amendment that was not adopted by the Committee, and given the fact that the sponsor countries decided to include in the text aspects on openness to dialogue, El Salvador decided to change its position and to vote in favour of the resolution, despite the fact that paragraph 8 was retained.


Nevertheless, for the record, El Salvador would like to state that with regard to operative paragraph 8, and despite the fact that it has voted in favour of the resolution on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, El Salvador is currently not a State party to the Rome Statute, and by extension to the International Criminal Court. That is why our vote in favour of this resolution should not be considered as our country’s recognition of the jurisdiction of this international tribunal as stated in paragraph 8.

 

Ms. Murillo (Costa Rica) (spoke in Spanish): I would like to make a general statement following the adoption of these country-specific resolutions.


Our concern about the human rights situation in the specific countries referred to in the resolutions submitted for consideration in the plenary today led us to vote in favour of all three resolutions. In addition, we maintain our principled position that all country-specific situations should be assessed on their respective merits — including, in this case, steps taken by countries to improve their human rights situations. Nevertheless, my country reiterates that the Human Rights Council has the main mandate on this issue. We should therefore support the Council and give it a prominent role on the issues before us today. The Human Rights Council has the necessary tools at its disposal to consider specific cases that are cause for concern to the international community — situations that, owing to their seriousness, require country-specific attention, such as special procedures. That is why my country believes that addressing country-specific situations should take place in the Human Rights Council. We therefore did not join the resolutions as sponsors in the Third Committee.

We acknowledge that the Universal Periodic Review mechanism provides the appropriate means to consider human rights situations based on transparent, reliable and objective information. Strengthening the mechanism will help to further strengthen the Human Rights Council as the main body of the United Nations for the promotion and protection of human rights throughout the world without any distinction. Nevertheless, that should not distract us from our responsibility to express ourselves about situations that are of critical importance for fundamental rights, wherever they occur in the world, or from considering country-specific situations when necessary.


Costa Rica believes that constructive dialogue and cooperation, including cooperation with special procedures and other human rights mechanisms and open invitations to visit countries, should continue to serve as the path towards effectively promoting and protecting human rights. We call on all States to commit truly to that effort.

 

Mr. Wickramarachchige (Sri Lanka): Sri Lanka wishes to make the following statement following the voting on resolution 69/188, entitled “Situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea”.


Sri Lanka voted against this resolution. Our vote does not in any way demonstrate disregard for the promotion or protection of human rights. On the contrary, Sri Lanka remains committed to the advancement of human rights, and concerned about the alleged human rights situation in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. We urge the Government to take mesures to respect human rights and fundamental freedoms. Sri Lanka vehemently condemns all acts of abduction and expresses deep concern about the safety of those victims.

Sri Lanka believes that country-specific resolutions designed to name and shame are not the appropriate means to address or advance human rights. When this resolution was considered in the Third Committee, Sri Lanka voted in favour of the proposal presented by Cuba to replace the current paragraphs 7 and 8 with provisions that would enable the adoption of a cooperative approach. However, the proposal failed to receive the necessary support in the Committee. The current paragraphs 7 and 8 require that the Commission of Inquiry report on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea be submitted to the Security Council. They also encourage the Council to consider referring the situation to the International Criminal Court. That is an unacceptable approach, especially as the country concerned has indicated its willingness to engage, and even to accept the visit of a Special Rapporteur. Sri Lanka categorically rejects that proposition in the resolution, which places the onus on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to address alleged human rights violations.

For those reasons, having abstained in the past, Sri Lanka was compelled to vote against this resolution.

 

(...)


 

[Adopted Resolution/채택된 결의안]

 

http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/69/188

 

 

United Nations

A/RES/69/188

General Assembly

Distr.: General

21 January 2015

Sixty-ninth session

Agenda item 68 (c)

 

 

Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 18 December 2014

[on the report of the Third Committee (A/69/488/Add.3)]

69/188.    Situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea

 

 

          The General Assembly,

          Reaffirming that all States have an obligation to promote and protect human rights and fundamental freedoms and to fulfil the obligations that they have undertaken under the various international instruments,

          Recalling all previous resolutions adopted by the General Assembly, the Commission on Human Rights and the Human Rights Council on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, including Assembly resolution 68/183 of 18 December 2013 and Council resolution 25/25 of 28 March 2014,[1] and mindful of the need for the international community to strengthen its coordinated efforts aimed at achieving the implementation of those resolutions,

          Deeply concerned at the grave human rights situation, the pervasive culture of impunity and the lack of accountability for human rights violations in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea,

          Welcoming the report of the commission of inquiry on human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea,[2] and expressing grave concern at the detailed findings contained therein,

          Noting the transmission of the report of the commission of inquiry to the Security Council on 14 April 2014,

          Recalling the responsibility of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to protect its population from crimes against humanity,

          Taking note of the report of the Special Rapporteur of the Human Rights Council on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea,[3] regretting that he still has not been allowed to visit the country and that he has received no cooperation from the authorities of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, and taking note also of the comprehensive report of the Secretary-General on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea submitted in accordance with resolution 68/183,[4]

          Mindful that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,[5] the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights,5 the Convention on the Rights of the Child[6] and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women,[7] and recalling the concluding observations of the treaty bodies under the four treaties,

          Noting with appreciation the signature of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities[8] and the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography[9] by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, encouraging the Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to take speedy steps to ratify the Convention and the Optional Protocol, and urging the Government to fully respect the rights of persons with disabilities and children,

          Acknowledging the participation of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea in the second universal periodic review process, noting the acceptance by the Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea of 113 out of the 268 recommendations contained in the outcome of the review[10] and its stated commitment to implement them and look into the possibility of implementing a further 58 recommendations, and emphasizing the importance of the implementation of the recommendations in order to address the grave human rights violations in the country,

          Noting with appreciation the collaboration established between the Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and the United Nations Children’s Fund and the World Health Organization in order to improve the health situation in the country, and the collaboration established with the United Nations Children’s Fund in order to improve the quality of education for children,

          Noting the decision on the resumption, on a modest scale, of the activities of the United Nations Development Programme in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, and encouraging the engagement of the Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea with the international community to ensure that the programmes benefit the persons in need of assistance,

          Noting also the cooperation between the Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and the World Food Programme, the United Nations Children’s Fund and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations on food security assessments, underscoring the importance of those assessments in analysing changes in the national, household and individual food security and nutritional situation and thereby in supporting donor confidence in the targeting of aid programmes, noting further the letter of understanding signed by the Government and the World Food Programme and the importance of further improvements in operating conditions, bringing access and monitoring arrangements closer to international standards for all United Nations entities, and noting with appreciation the work of international aid operators,

          Noting further the importance of the issue of international abductions and of the immediate return of all abductees, taking note of the outcome of the government-level consultation between the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and Japan in May 2014, and expecting concrete and positive results from the investigations being conducted by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea on all the Japanese nationals, in particular victims of abduction,

          Noting the importance of the inter-Korean dialogue, which could contribute to the improvement of the human rights and humanitarian situation in the country,

          Welcoming the resumption of the reunions of separated families across the border in February 2014, and, given that this is an urgent humanitarian concern of the entire Korean people, hoping that necessary arrangements for further reunions on a larger scale and a regular basis will be made by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, the Republic of Korea and members of the Korean diaspora,

          1.       Condemns the long-standing and ongoing systematic, widespread and gross violations of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, including those which the commission of inquiry on human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, established by the Human Rights Council in its resolution 22/13 of 21 March 2013,[11] has said may amount to crimes against humanity, and the continuing impunity for such violations;

          2.       Expresses its very serious concern at:

          (a)    The persistence of continuing reports of violations of human rights, including the detailed findings made by the commission of inquiry in its report,2 such as:

(i)      Torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, including inhuman conditions of detention; rape; public executions; extrajudicial and arbitrary detention; the absence of due process and the rule of law, including fair trial guarantees and an independent judiciary; extrajudicial, summary and arbitrary executions; the imposition of the death penalty for political and religious reasons; collective punishments extending up to three generations; and the extensive use of forced labour;

(ii)     The existence of an extensive system of political prison camps, where a vast number of persons are deprived of their liberty and subjected to deplorable conditions and where alarming violations of human rights are perpetrated, and in this regard strongly urges the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to immediately end this practice and to release all political prisoners unconditionally and without any delay;

(iii)   The forcible transfer of populations and the limitations imposed on every person who wishes to move freely within the country and travel abroad, including the punishment of those who leave or try to leave the country without permission, or their families, as well as punishment of persons who are returned;

(iv)    The situation of refugees and asylum seekers expelled or returned to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and sanctions imposed on citizens of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea who have been repatriated from abroad, leading to punishments of internment, torture, other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, sexual violence or the death penalty, and in this regard strongly urges all States to respect the fundamental principle of
non-refoulement, to treat those who seek refuge humanely and to ensure unhindered access to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and his Office, with a view to protecting the human rights of those who seek refuge, and once again urges States parties to comply with their obligations under the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees
[12] and the 1967 Protocol thereto[13] in relation to refugees from the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea who are covered by those instruments;

(v)     All-pervasive and severe restrictions on the freedoms of thought, conscience, religion or belief, opinion and expression, peaceful assembly and association, the right to privacy and equal access to information, by such means as the persecution, torture and imprisonment of individuals exercising their freedom of opinion and expression, religion or belief, and their families, and the right of everyone to take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives, of his or her country;

(vi)    Violations of economic, social and cultural rights, which have led to severe hunger, malnutrition, widespread health problems and other hardship for the population in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, in particular for women, children, persons with disabilities and the elderly;

(vii)   Violations of the human rights and fundamental freedoms of women, in particular the creation of internal conditions that force women to leave the country and make them extremely vulnerable to trafficking in persons for the purpose of prostitution, domestic servitude or forced marriage and the subjection of women to forced abortions, gender-based discrimination, including in the political and social spheres, and other forms of sexual and gender-based violence;

(viii)  Violations of the human rights and fundamental freedoms of children, in particular the continued lack of access to basic economic, social and cultural rights for many children, and in this regard notes the particularly vulnerable situation faced by, inter alia, returned or repatriated children, street children, children with disabilities, children whose parents are detained, children living in detention or in institutions and children in conflict with the law;

(ix)    Violations of the human rights and fundamental freedoms of persons with disabilities, especially in the use of collective camps and of coercive measures that target the rights of persons with disabilities to decide freely and responsibly on the number and spacing of their children;

(x)     Violations of workers’ rights, including the right to freedom of association and effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining, the right to strike as defined by the obligations of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights,5 and the prohibition of the economic exploitation of children and of any harmful or hazardous work of children as defined by the obligations of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea under the Convention on the Rights of the Child;6

(xi)    Discrimination based on the songbun system, which classifies people on the basis of State-assigned social class and birth, and also includes consideration of political opinions and religion;

          (b)     The continued refusal of the Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to recognize the mandate of the Special Rapporteur of the Human Rights Council on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea or to extend cooperation to the Special Rapporteur;

          (c)     The continued lack of acknowledgement by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea of the grave human rights situation in the country and its consequential lack of action to implement the recommendations contained in the outcome of its first universal periodic review;[14]

          (d)     The failure of the authorities of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to prosecute those responsible for human rights violations, including violations which the commission of inquiry has said may amount to crimes against humanity;

          3.       Underscores its very serious concern at the systematic abduction, denial of repatriation and subsequent enforced disappearance of persons, including those from other countries, on a large scale and as a matter of State policy, and in this regard strongly calls upon the Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea urgently to resolve these issues of international concern, in a transparent manner, including by ensuring the immediate return of abductees;

          4.       Expresses its very deep concern at the precarious humanitarian situation in the country, which could rapidly deteriorate owing to limited resilience to natural disasters and to government policies causing limitations in the availability of and access to food, compounded by structural weaknesses in agricultural production resulting in significant shortages of diversified food and the State restrictions on the cultivation of and trade in foodstuffs, as well as the prevalence of chronic malnutrition, particularly among the most vulnerable groups, pregnant women, children, persons with disabilities and the elderly, and urges the Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, in this regard, to take preventive and remedial action, cooperating where necessary with international donor agencies and in accordance with international standards for monitoring humanitarian assistance;

          5.       Commends the Special Rapporteur for the activities undertaken so far and for his continued efforts in the conduct of his mandate despite the denial of access;

          6.       Also commends the work of the commission of inquiry and recognizes the importance of its report, and regrets that the commission received no cooperation from the authorities of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, including with regard to access to the country;

          7.       Acknowledges the commission’s finding that the body of testimony gathered and the information received provide reasonable grounds to believe that crimes against humanity have been committed in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, pursuant to policies established at the highest level of the State for decades;

          8.       Decides to submit the report of the commission of inquiry to the Security Council, and encourages the Council to consider the relevant conclusions and recommendations of the commission and take appropriate action to ensure accountability, including through consideration of referral of the situation in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to the International Criminal Court and consideration of the scope for effective targeted sanctions against those who appear to be most responsible for acts that the commission has said may constitute crimes against humanity;

          9.       Welcomes the steps taken by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights towards establishing a field-based structure in the Republic of Korea to strengthen the monitoring and documentation of the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, to ensure accountability, to provide the Special Rapporteur with increased support, to enhance the engagement and capacity-building of the Governments of all States concerned, civil society and other stakeholders and to maintain the visibility of the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, including through sustained communications, advocacy and outreach initiatives;

          10.     Calls upon Member States to undertake to ensure that the field-based structure of the Office of the High Commissioner can function with independence, that it has sufficient resources and that it is not subjected to any reprisals or threats;

          11.     Strongly urges the Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to respect fully all human rights and fundamental freedoms and, in this regard:

          (a)     To immediately put an end to the systematic, widespread and grave violations of human rights emphasized above, inter alia, by implementing fully the measures set out in the above-mentioned resolutions of the General Assembly, the Commission on Human Rights and the Human Rights Council, and the recommendations addressed to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea by the Council in the context of the universal periodic review and by the commission of inquiry, the United Nations special procedures and treaty bodies;

          (b)     To protect its inhabitants, address the issue of impunity and ensure that those responsible for violations of human rights are brought to justice before an independent judiciary;

          (c)     To tackle the root causes leading to refugee outflows and prosecute those who exploit refugees by human smuggling, trafficking and extortion, while not criminalizing the victims;

          (d)     To ensure that citizens of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea who are expelled or returned to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea are able to return in safety and dignity, are treated humanely and are not subjected to any kind of punishment, and to provide information on their status and treatment;

          (e)     To extend its full cooperation to the Special Rapporteur, including by granting him full, free and unimpeded access to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, and to other United Nations human rights mechanisms so that a full needs assessment of the human rights situation may be made;

          (f)      To engage in technical cooperation activities in the field of human rights with the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and his Office, as pursued by the High Commissioner in recent years, with a view to improving the situation of human rights in the country, and to strive to implement the accepted recommendations stemming from the universal periodic review;

          (g)     To engage in cooperation with the International Labour Organization;

          (h)     To continue and reinforce its cooperation with United Nations humanitarian agencies;

          (i)      To ensure full, safe and unhindered access to humanitarian aid and take measures to allow humanitarian agencies to secure its impartial delivery to all parts of the country on the basis of need in accordance with humanitarian principles, as it pledged to do, and to ensure access to adequate food and implement more effective food security policies, including through sustainable agriculture, sound food production distribution measures and the allocation of more funds to the food sector, and to ensure adequate monitoring of humanitarian assistance;

          (j)      To further improve cooperation with the United Nations country team and development agencies so that they can directly contribute to improving the living conditions of the civilian population, including accelerating progress towards the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals, in accordance with international monitoring and evaluation procedures;

          (k)     To consider ratifying and acceding to remaining international human rights treaties, which would enable a dialogue with the human rights treaty bodies;

          12.     Urges the Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to implement the recommendations of the commission of inquiry without delay;

          13.     Encourages all Member States, the General Assembly, the Human Rights Council, the Office of the High Commissioner, the United Nations Secretariat, civil society organizations, foundations and engaged business enterprises and other stakeholders towards which the commission of inquiry has directed recommendations to implement or take forward those recommendations;

          14.     Welcomes the recent willingness expressed by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to consider human rights dialogues with States and groups of States, technical cooperation with the Office of the High Commissioner and a country visit of the Special Rapporteur;

          15.     Calls upon the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to continue to engage constructively with international interlocutors with a view to promoting concrete improvements in the human rights situation on the ground, including through dialogues, official visits to the country and more people-to-people contact;

          16.     Decides to continue its examination of the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea at its seventieth session, and to this end requests the Secretary-General to submit a comprehensive report on the situation in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, and requests the Special Rapporteur to continue to report his findings and recommendations, as well as to report on the follow-up to the implementation of the recommendations of the commission of inquiry, in line with Human Rights Council resolution 25/25.1

 

73rd plenary meeting
18 December 2014

 



[1] See Official Records of the General Assembly, Sixty-ninth Session, Supplement No. 53 (A/69/53), chap. II.

[5] See resolution 2200 A (XXI), annex.

[6] United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 1577, No. 27531.

[7] Ibid., vol. 1249, No. 20378.

[8] Ibid., vol. 2515, No. 44910.

[9] Ibid., vol. 2171, No. 27531.

[11] See Official Records of the General Assembly, Sixty-eighth Session, Supplement No. 53 (A/68/53), chap. IV, sect. A.

[12] United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 189, No. 2545.

[13] Ibid., vol. 606, No. 8791.


Source:

http://www.un.org/press/en/2014/ga11604.doc.htm

http://www.un.org/en/ga/69/resolutions.shtml

http://www.un.org/en/ga/third/69/reports.shtml

포스터:제4회 유엔인권권고 분야별 이행사항 점검 심포지엄 - 포스터.PDF

보도자료:20141216_제4회_유엔인권권고_분야별_이행사항_점검_심포지엄_개최.hwp

 

자료집:

1)제4회 유엔인권권고 분야별 이행사항 점검 심포지엄 - 자료집.pdf

┗ Link: http://www.koreanbar.or.kr/inc/file_down.asp?url=pub&filename=자료집.pdf&filesave=ko_com_pub_2014121810166_1.PDF

 

2)제4회 유엔인권권고 분야별 이행사항 점검 심포지엄 - 자료집 - 추가자료.zip

┗ Link: http://www.koreanbar.or.kr/inc/file_down.asp?url=pub&filename=추가자료.zip&filesave=ko_com_pub_2014121810166_2.ZIP

 


 

 

제4회 유엔인권권고 분야별 이행사항 점검 심포지엄

일시 : 2014년 12월 17일(수) 13:30~18:00
장소 : 대한변협회관 14층 대강당

 

13:30~13:40

개회식
사회 : 김병주 대한변호사협회 국제인권특별위원회 위원장·변호사
▶ 환영사 : 대한변호사협회 협회장
▶ 환영사 : 신혜수 유엔인권정책센터 상임대표


13:40~15:10

Session 1 UPR 권고 이행 중간점검 (14층)

사회 : 김종철 대한변호사협회 국제인권특별위원회 위원·변호사
▶ 발제 : 장영석 대한변호사협회 국제인권특별위원회 위원·변호사
▶ 토론 : ⑴ 백가윤 참여연대 간사
⑵ 이경아 외교부 인권사회과장
⑶ 이석준 국가인권위원회 인권정책과장
⑷ 오유진 법무부 인권정책과 사무관
▶ 전체토론

15:25~16:55

쉬는 시간


15:10~15:25

Session 2 국가인권위원회 ICC 권고 이행 및 나아가야할 길 (18층)

사회 : 오재창 대한변호사협회
국제인권특별위원회 부위원장·변호사
▶ 발제 : 유남영 변호사
▶ 토론 : ⑴ 박찬운 한양대학교 법학전문대학원교수·변호사
⑵ 명숙 인권운동사랑방 상임활동가
⑶ 조규범 국회입법조사연구관·법학박사

16:55~17:00
Session 3 인권권고 이행을 위한 입법부의 책임과 역할 (14층)

사회 : 신혜수 유엔인권정책센터 상임대표
▶ 발제 : 황필규 대한변호사협회 국제인권특별위원회위원·변호사
▶ 토론 : ⑴ 홍일표 국회의원

⑵ 차인순 국회 입법심의관

 

17:00~18:00

종합토론 (14층)
사회 : 신혜수 유엔인권정책센터 상임대표

 

 

대한변호사협회(협회장 위철환)는 유엔인권정책센터와 공동으로 2014. 12. 17.(수) 13:30 대한변협회관 14층 대강당에서 “제4회 유엔인권권고 분야별 이행사항 점검 심포지엄”을 개최합니다.

협회는 2011년부터 매년 동 심포지엄을 개최하여 유엔의 인권권고사항을 확인하고 이행 여부 및 정도를 평가하고 우리나라 인권상황 증진을 위해 노력해왔으며, 올해에는 ①UPR 권고 이행 중간점검, ②국가인권위원회 ICC(국가인권기구 조정위원회 승인소위원회) 권고 이행 및 나아가야 할 길, ③유엔인권권고 이행을 위한 입법부의 책임과 역할에 관하여 논의할 예정입니다.

이번 토론회에는 장영석 대한변호사협회 국제인권특별위원회 위원(변호사), 유남영 변호사, 황필규 대한변호사협회 국제인권특별위원회 위원(변호사)가 주제발표를 하고, 백가윤 참여연대 간사, 이경아 외교부 인권사회과장, 이석준 국가인권위원회 인권정책과장, 오유진 법무부 인권정책과 사무관, 박찬운 한양대학교 법학전문대학원 교수(변호사), 명 숙 인권운동사랑방 상임활동가, 조규범 국회 입법조사연구관(법학박사), 홍일표 국회의원, 차인순 국회 입법심의관, 김병주 대한변호사협회 국제인권특별위원회 위원장(변호사)이 토론자로 참석하여 열띤 토론을 펼칠 예정입니다

위 심포지엄을 통해 UPR 인권 권고에 대한 적극적인 개선 방안을 마련하여 한국의 인권상황 증진을 도모하고, ICC 권고사항을 충실히 반영하여 국가인권위원회의 재승인심사 등급결정이 적절하게 이루어질 수 있는 초석을 마련하는 자리가 되기를 바랍니다.

 

참가신청: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/166xPeJdG3KA1ZrgS9cI55Kk4-XOHt58E1965_raiJaU/viewform?usp=send_form

 

 


 

4회 유엔인권권고 분야별 이행사항 점검 심포지움

주요내용

 

지난 1217일 코쿤과 대한변호사협회가 공동으로 제 4회 유엔인권권고 분야별 이행사항 점검 심포지움을 개최하였다. 어느덧 4회를 맞이하는 이번 심포지움의 주제는 1) 국가별인권상황정기검토(Universal Periodic Review) 권고이행 중간점검 2) 국가인권위원회 ICC 권고 이행 및 나아가야할 길 3) 인권권고 이행을 위한 입법부의 책임과 역할로 나뉘어졌다.

 

 

사진.제 4회 심포지움이 진행되고 있는 대한변호사협회 14층 회의장 


주제 1 UPR 권고이행 중간점검

 

201210월 한국정부의 국가별인권상황정기검토 이른바 UPR 심의 이후 2년이 되었다. 4년 주기로 진행되는 UPR 심의인 만큼 UPR 권고 이행 중간점검의 의미로 이번 심포지움의 첫 세션의 주제로 정했다. 참고로 한국의 UPR 최초 심의는 2008년 진행되었고 2차 심의는 지난 2012년에 진행되었다.

 

이 세션의 발제자인 민주사회를 위한 변호사 모임의 장영석 변호사는 중간점검을 위한 지표 질문을 사용하여 권고이행을 평가했다. 먼저 1)UPR 에서의 권고를 모국어로 번역했는지 2) 그 권고들에 대중들이 쉽게 접근할 수 있는지 3) UPR 심의이후 정부나 국가별인권기구가 권고의 내용을 풀어서 설명하고, 시민사회와 이행방안을 함께 고민하는 자리를 가졌는지 4)국가에 인권정책기본계획이 있는지, 있다면 UPR 고가 그 내용에 잘 반영되었는지 5) 정부가 중간 보고서를 작성하여 이행을 평가하였는지 등이 있을 수 있다고 전했다.

 

이러한 방식으로 정부의 권고이행을 평가해 보았을 때, 전반적으로 정부의 이행상황은 부정적이었다. 우선 정부는 요약하여 UPR 권고를 게시하였을 뿐, 원문 전체를 번역하여 게시하지 않았고 정부의 2차 심의 답변이 1차 심의의 답변과 대동소이하거나 오히려 2차 심의에서의 답변이 오히려 인권적으로 후퇴했다. 이는 민감한 사안에 대해 정부의 대답이 늘상 추상적이거나, 해당 사안에 대한 연구하고 있다는 답변만 내놓는데서 비롯되었는데, 이에 대해 토론자로 참석한 법무부 사무관 역시 구체적이지 않은 정부계획에 대한 시원한 답변을 내놓지 못했다. 시민사회와의 부족한 대화에 대한 지적도 이어졌는데, 토론자로 나선 참여연대 국제연대위원회 백가윤 간사 역시 정부와 국가인권위원회, 시민사회단체 사이의 주기적인 대화의 자리가 마련되어 이러한 요식행위가 아닌 진정성을 가져야 한다고 강조하며 그러한 장에서 시민사회의 의견이 정부의 입법,사법, 행정 영역에 적극적으로 반영되어야 실질적인 인권향상을 기대할 수 있다고 전했다.

 

끝으로 발제자는 정부가 UPR 이행점검이나 향후 UPR 국가심의절차 등이 단순히 법률개정이나 정책입안을 홍보하는 자리가 아니라 그러한 법률이나 정책에 따라 실질적으로 인권개선에 기여하는 절차여야 한다는 인식변화를 가지길 요청했다. 백가윤 간사 역시 전적으로 동의를 표하며 UPR 도를 국제적인 망신주기 제도로 이해하기 보다 인권상황 개선을 위해 정부가 직면한 어려움과 인권개선의 모범 사례를 공유하여 인권증진 및 보호를 위한 국가의 역량을 강화할 수 있는 계기로 받아들일 것을 기대한다고 토론을 마무리했다.

 

주제 2 국가인권위원회 ICC 권고 이행 및 나아가야할 길

지난 20143월 한국 국가인권위원회가 국제조정위원회의 승인소위 정기 재심사에서 등급 결정을 10월로 연기하였다가 다시 20153로 연기하였다. 이에 심포지움의 두 번째 주제로 국가인권위원회의 ICC 권고 이행과 국가인권위의 바람직한 기능 수행을 위해 나아가야 할 길에 대해 논의하는 시간을 마련했다.

 

이 세션의 발제는 ICC 인소위 위원으로 활동경험과 국가인권위원회 상임위원을 역임한 유남영 변호사가 맡았다. 유 변호사는 승인소위가 ICC의 회원기구이자 A 등급의 한국 국가인권위원회를 바로 강등 하지 않고 심의를 연기한 것은 2008ICC가 한국 국가인권위원회에 내린 권고사항을 이행할 수 있는 기회를 부여하기 위한 것으로 판단했다. ICC 가 권고한 사항은 현행 국가인권위원회법에 따라 인권위원을 선출한 절차와 방법, 국가인권위원회가 예산과 인사와 관련하여 행정부의 통제 아래있는 점 등은 파리 원칙에 부합하지 않으므로 법령개정이 필요하다는 점이다.

 

하지만 한국 국가인권위원회는 “ICC 권고 사항은 법과 제도 등 법률개저어 관련사항이므로 인권위가 독자적으로 해결하기에 어려운 측면이 있습니다, 우리 위원회는 그 동안의 지속적인 노력에도 불구하고 ICC 승인소위가 내린 이번 권고에 대해 깊은 유감을 표시하며, ICC승인 소위의 우리나라 법과 제도 및 상황에 대한 이해가 얼마나 깊은가에 대한 의문점을 갖게 됩니다라는 입장을 내놓았다.

 

발제자는 한국 국가인권위의 취한 입장을 바보 디펜스”(자신이 해결하여야 할 문제에 대해 자신이 해결 능력이 없거나 해결할 문제가 자신의 능력 밖임을 하소연하는 방어방법)라고 칭하며 실망감을 나타냈는데 이는 ICC 및 승인소위는 입법권은 의회에 있고 각 국가마다 매우 다양한 정치형태와 법제를 가지고 있다는 점을 이미 잘 알고 있고, 이러한 제도와 법제의 다양성을 전제로 승인심사 업무를 수행하기 때문이다.

 

토론자로 나선 인권운동사랑방의 명숙 활동가는 ICC 권고이행을 위해 인권위법 개정안이 발의된것 처럼 보이지만 실제로 그런적 없으며 ICC가 한국의 사정을 모른다고만 주장하는 인권위의 태도에 대해 불만을 토로했다. 또한 한국시민사회단체가 ICC에 한국국가인권위의 등급 강등을 요청한 것은 인권위 기능이 후퇴하여도 좋은 등급을 받을 수 있다는 선례를 남겨 국제사회에 영향을 끼칠 수 있다는 우려 때문이라고 전했다.

 

발제자는 국가인권기구는 인권이라는 보편적인 기준에 입각하여 개별국가, 시민사회, 유엔 등의 국제인권기구의 세 꼭지점을 연결하는 효과적인 촉매제 및 교량으로서의 역할을 해야 하며 승인소위가 한국 국가인권위원회로 하여금 명시적인 법률규정을 통해 그 지위를 강화할 것을 요구하는 점을 감안하여 현재의 정치현실에 매몰되어 국제사회가 오해하고 있다고 변명을 하거나 ICC에 대해 화를 내거나 나무라는 것이 아니라 청와대, 정부, 국회, 언론 등에 ICC 권고사항을 충실히 반영하는 입법(법률 또는 대통령령)이 이뤄지도록 로비, 설득, 여론 조성 등의 일을 하는 것이라고 강조했다.

 

끝으로 유남영 변호사는 만약 ICC 승인소위가 한국의 국가인권위원회에 대하여 A 등급에서 B등급으로 등급을 강등하는 결정을 내린다면, 오히려 국가권력이 자신을 감시할 기구인 국가인권기구가 어느 정도 강해지는 것을 허용하는지를 성찰하는 좋은 기회가 될 수 있을 것이라며, 한국 사회가 이러한 자화상을 유지할 지 아니면 보편적인 기준에 따라 변경할지 여부는 국가인권위와 한국 사회의 선택에 달려있다고 전하며 발제를 마쳤다.

 

주제 3 인권권고 이행을 위한 입법부의 책임과 역할

 

권고이행의 주된 책임을 가지고 있는 행정부와 국제인권법연구회를 통해 어느 정도 국제협약과 권고이행에 대한 연구모임이 정착화된 사법부에 비해 인권포럼을 통해 간헐적으로만 논의가 이뤄지는 입법부의 국제인권권고 노력을 독려하기 위해 본 세션이 마련되었다.

 

발제자로 나선 황필규 변호사는 국회는 국가구조의 일부분으로서 당연히 인권보호, 존중 및 실현의 의무를 가진다며 법률을 만드는 입법부 고유한 위치에서 협약 이행 감시가 가능하다고 강조했다. 황변호사는 국회의 의무로 국제인권기구 결정례 혹은 권고를 참조하여 입법안이 국제인권기준에 부합되도록 하여야 하며 적절한 절차를 마련하여 제 개정 법률안이 국제인권규범에 부합하는지를 심사하여 장래 국제인권규범의 위반을 예방하고, 이는 각각의 법질서에 영향을 미칠 수 있는 국제인구너기구의 권고에 대한 정기적인 점검을 포함한다고 했다. 이를 위해 관련 기구를 설치하고 NGO 와의 협력과 인권교육 등을 입법부의 책임과 역할로 상정하였는데 보다 구체적인 체계마련 방안으로 다음의 가능성을 제시했다.

 

1) 국회 내 별도의 상임위원회 신설 2) 상임위 내 소위원회 구성 3)인권포럼이나 경제사회정책포럼과 같이 기존 연구단체 강화 또는 신설 4)시민사회단체가 함께하는 연구모임 결성 등이다.

 

이에 토론자로 나선 김병주 변호사는 기존 상임위 내 소위원회 설치는 현실적인 어려움이 예상된다는 의견과 함께 별도의 상임위 설치가 장기적인 목표로 반드시 필요하며 이는 시민사회가 나서서 독려해야 할 문제라는 제시했다. 또한 시민사회가 나서 국회의원들이 국제인권기준과 권고에 대해 연구할 수 있도록 노력하며 연구 횟수를 설정하기에 앞서 국회의 역할과 활동이 필요하다고 설득하는 것이 우선이라고 했다. 또 다른 토론자인 차인순 국회입법심의관은 국가인권위 소관 상임위에서 총괄 점검이 필요하나 국회운영위원회는 상임위 특성상 마찰이 많아 인권문제를 차분히 다루기에는 한계가 있다고 지적했다.

 

차인순 심의관은 국회의원들이 국제인권권고 이행에 대한 관심이 낮은 이유는 국제인권이라는 이슈가 국민의 피부에 와닿는 의제라기보다는 후순위의 문제라고 인식하기 때문이라고 하자 김병주 변호사는 인권의제를 발굴하고 이를 국제법에 맞춰 분석하고 적절한 입법 활동을 하는 것은 국민에게 충분히 호소력을 가지고 뚜렷한 성과를 낼 수 있다는 의견을 밝혔다.

 

황필규 변호사는 발제의 끝에서 국회가 당장 적어도 정부로 하여금 유엔인권기구의 각종 권고를 모두 변역하여 그 이행방안과 함께 국회에 채계적으로 보고할 수 있도록 하여야 하고, 국회의원들도 유엔인권이사회나 한국 국가보고서가 심의되는 유엔조약기구 회의에 공식적으로 참여하는 등 적극적인 역할을 수행하기 위한 방안을 모색하고 실천에 옮겨야 한다고 주장하며 발표를 마무리했다.

 


 

출처:

http://kocun.org/v1/load.asp?b_code=33&board_md=view&idx=535

http://www.koreanbar.or.kr HOME > 자료실 > 기타

http://www.koreanbar.or.kr HOME > 알림마당 > 보도자료

http://www.kocun.org/v1/load.asp?sub_p=board/board&b_code=33&page=1&idx=545&board_md=view

자료집:ICC 등급심사 재보류에 따른「국가인권위법 개정안」공청회 - 자료집.pdf

 

 

“국가인권위원회 제자리 찾기의 시작”

 

ICC 등급심사 재보류에 따른 국가인권위법 개정안 공청회

 

▢ 날짜: 2014년 12월 10일 오전 10시

▢ 장소: 국회의원회관 제8간담회실

▢ 주최: 새정치민주연합 장하나의원실, 국가인권위 제자리 찾기 공동행동

 

사회: 박경석 공동상임대표 (전국장애인차별철폐연대)

인사말: 새정치민주연합 장하나의원

  

[발제]

국가인권기구 국제조정위원회(ICC) 권고의 의미

: 유남영 변호사(전 국가인권위원회 상임위원, 전 ICC 승인소위 위원)

 

인권위 독립성 확보와 인권위원 인선절차 마련을 위한 인권위법 개정안

: 명숙 집행위원장(국가인권위 공동행동, 인권운동사랑방)

 

[토론]

인권위가 만든 인권위법 개정안과 가이드라인의 문제점 

: 김동현 변호사(희망을 만드는 법, 민변 소수자인권위원회)

ICC에 제출한 NGO 보고서 내용과 국제사회의 흐름 

:강은지 활동가(국제민주연대)

인권위원의 다원성 문제와 반인권 인물 최이우의 임명에 대해 

: 이종걸 활동가(성소수자차별반대무지개행동)

ICC 권고 이행을 위한 인권위 방안

조형석 국제협력팀장(국가인권위원회) 

 


출처: http://www.khis.or.kr/spaceBBS/bbs.asp?act=read&bbs=notice1&no=327&ncount=306&s_text=&s_title=&pageno=1&basic_url=

http://hopeandlaw.org/442

출처: http://hopeandlaw.org/441


 

국가인권기구 등급보류결정의 의미와 향후 과제는 무엇일까요?(하)

희망법 활동/공익인권법 일반 2014/12/03 17:49


국가인권위원회 등급보류 결정의 의미와 향후 과제(하)





5. 국가인권위원회의 대응 : 국가인권위원회법 개정안과 정책권고


국가인권위원회을 등급보류결정을 받았다는 것은 결국 이전의 권고를 이행하지 않아서 강등위기에 처했다는 뜻이네요. 그럼 이에 대해서 국가인권위원회는 어떠한 대응을 하였나요?


먼저, 국가인권위원회법 개정안 발의를 준비하였습니다(개정안 바로가기)


개정안의 주요내용은 다음과 같습니다.

 

(1) 인권위원의 지명 및 선출시 "투명하고 공정한 절차에 따라 인권의 보호와 향상에 관련된 다양한 사회계층의 대표성이 반영될 수 있도록 하"는 내용을 반영함 (개정안 제5조 제3)

(2) 상임위원까지 국회의 인사청문을 거치도록 하도록 함 (개정안 제5조 제4)

(3) 여성위원을 5명이상 임명하도록 함(개정안 제5조 제7)

(4) 인권위원과 국가인권위원회의 소속 직원은 고의 또는 중과실이 없는 한 직무수행 중 불법행위로 인한 손해배상책임을 부담하지 아니하도록 함(개정안 제8조의2).

(5) 국가인권위원회의 예산에 관하여는 국가정보원법에서 정하고 있는 예를 준용함(개정안 제3조의2).



Q 국가인권위원회가 정책권고도 하였다고 하였는데요. 정책권고는 무엇이고 내용은 무엇인가요?


국가인권위원회는 관계기관 등에 정책과 관행의 개선 및 시정을 권고하거나 의견을 표명할 수 있습니다(국가인권위원회법 제25조 제1항). 국가인권위원회는 위 조항에 근거하여 2014. 9. 22. ICC의 위원 선출권한을 가지고 있는 세 국가기관(대통령, 국회, 법원)에 아래의 내용을 권고하였습니다.



주  문


1. 국무총리와 국회의장에게 「국가인권위원회법 일부개정법률안」에 기초하여 「국가인권위원회법」의 개정을 추진할 것을 권고한다.


2. 대통령, 국회의장, 대법원장에게,「국가인권위원회 위원 선출․지명의 원칙과 절차에 관한 가이드라인」의 내용을 반영하여 내부 규정에 국가인권위원회 위원의 선출․지명 절차를 규정하고, 동 규정이 마련되기 전까지는 가이드라인에 따라 선출․지명 절차를 진행할 것을 권고한다.



그리고 국가인권위원회는 아래와 같은 가이드라인을 제정하였습니다. 


국가인권위원회 위원 선출·지명의 원칙과 절차에 관한 가이드라인


전문


생략


1. 인권위원의 자격과 책무에 관한 원칙


인권위원은 국가인권위원회법의 규정에 따라 인권의 보장과 향상을 위해 노력해야 하며, 아래와 같은 자격과 책무가 요구된다.

가.~라. 생략


2. 인권위원의 다원성 보장을 위한 원칙


인권위원의 다원성 보장이란 첫째, 인권위원의 선출·지명절차에 있어 다양한 영역에서의 참여를 통한 다원성을 보장하여야 하고, 둘째,이러한 과정을 통하여 임명된 인권위원이 인권의 보호와 향상에 관련 된 다양한 사회계층을 대표할 수 있어야 한다는 것을 의미한다. 이를 위해서는 아래의 원칙을 따른다.


가. 인권위원은 특정 계층이나 직역에 편중되지 않아야 하고, 인권의 보호와 향상에 관련된 다양한 사회계층의 다원적 대표성이 반영될 수 있도록 구성되어야 한다.

나. 인권위원 중 1명 이상은 장애인으로 임명되어야 한다.

다. 인권위원을 선출·지명할 법적 권한이 있는 기관(이하 ‘선출·지명기관’이라 한다)은 인권위원을 선출·지명하는 절차에서 다양한 사회계층이 후보를 추천하거나 의견을 제시할 수 있도록 보장하여야 한다.

라. 선출·지명기관은 이미 구성된 인권위원의 다원적 대표성 분포를 고려하여 결여된 대표성을 보완할 수 있는 인권위원을 선출·지명하여야 한다.


3. 인권위원의 선출·지명의 절차에 관한 원칙


인권위원의 선출·지명은 다양한 사회계층이 참여하는 투명하고 공정한 절차에 따라 진행하여야 하며, 관련 절차는 규정으로 마련되어야 한다. 이를 위해서는 아래와 같은 원칙을 따라야 한다.

가. 국가인권위원회는 인권위원의 임기만료로 공석이 예정되는 경우에 는 임기만료일로부터 3개월 전에, 기타 사유로 공석이 된 경우에는 지체 없이, 해당 선출·지명기관에 대하여 인권위원 선출·지명절차를 개시할 것을 알려야 한다.

나. 국가인권위원회는 새로운 인권위원을 선출·지명할 기관에 대하여 현재 인권위원의 대표성 분포 및 직역 분포에 관한 정보를 전달할 수 있다.

다. 국가인권위원회는 인권위원의 공석에 대한 정보 및 인권위원 선출·지명절차와 일정을 국가인권위원회 인터넷 홈페이지, 인터넷 블로그, 소셜네트워크 서비스 등에 게시하거나, 시민사회단체들에 대해 전자우편을 발송하는 등 다양한 방법을 사용하여 널리 알려야 한다.

라. 선출·지명기관은 인권위원의 선출 지명에 있어 다양한 참여를 보장하기 위하여 자문기구인 후보추천위원회를 둘 수 있다.

마. 선출·지명기관은 인권위원의 선출·지명에 관하여 공석에 대한 정보 및 진행한 절차와 예정된 절차를 적정한 방법으로 공개하여야 한다.

바. 선출·지명기관은 인권위원을 선출·지명하는 경우, 해당 인권위원의 경력, 자격 요건 등을 포함한 지명 이유 등을 공표하여야 한다. 다만, 국회에서 선출하는 인권위원의 경우에는 국회 본회의의 표결 이전에 이를 공표하여야 한다.

사. 선출·지명기관이 인권위원의 연임을 결정하는 경우에 국가인권위원회 구성의 다원성에 대한 검토를 하여야 하며, 연임된 인권위원의 재임기간의 활동에 관한 내용을 포함하여 연임 이유를 공표하여야 한다.



6. 국가인권위원회의 대응의 문제점과 또 한번의 등급보류결정


Q 개정안의 발의와 정책권고, 그리고 가이드라인까지. 어떻게 보면 ICC 권고 이행을 위해서 최선을 다한 것 같은데요. 왜 ICC가 다시 등급보류 결정을 한 것일까요?


ICC가 또 한번의 등급보류 결정을 한 것은 국가인권위의 노력이 ICC의 권고를 충분히 반영하지 못하였다고 평가하였기 때문입니다


(1) 우선, 인권위원 선발과 관련한 가이드라인은 말그대로 "가이드라인"일 뿐 아무런 법적 구속력이 없기 때문입니다. 나아가 국가인권위원회의 정책권고는 이 가이드라인의 내용을 각 기관의 "내부규정"에 담을 것을 권고합니다. 이는 이를 구속력있는 규범에 담으라는 권고의 내용에 반하는 것입니다. 


ICC 권고(일반 견해 1.8) : 법률(legislation), 법규(regulations), 구속력있는  행정 지침(binding administrative guidelines)


국가인권위원회 : (1) 국가인권위원회 : 가이드라인 제정 / (2) 정책권고: 각 기관의 내부 규정으로 가이드라인 반영


ICC 권고에 대해 국가인권위원회는 "위원회가 권고한 가이드라인이 구속력이 없다는 의견은 위원 선출지명기관인 국회, 정부, 대법원이 가이드라인에 따라 승인소위의 권고를 내부 규정으로 명문화하고 이를 실질화한다면 해결될 수 있는 사안"이라고 해명하고 있습니다.

 

그러나 가이드라인이 법적 구속력이 없음은 명백한 것이고, 가이드라인을 반영한 "내부규정" 또한 이른바 행정규칙을 의미하기 때문에 대외적 구속력이 없습니다. 


나아가 국가인권위원회의 정책권고를 불수용하더라도 이에 대한 구속력있는 통제수단이 없기 때문에 결과적으로 이를 강제하는 수단이 없습니다. 


예를 들어보겠습니다. 아래의 내용은 국가인권위원회가 ICC 대응 관련하여 대법원과 업무협의한 내용입니다. 


대법원 인사총괄심의관의 의견 


가. 현행 규정과 현재 인권위원 다양성에 관한 입장

- 현행 규정에서 3부가 지명할 수 있도록 한 것은 조화롭게 잘 규정된 것

- 인권위원의 다양성과 관련하여 법조인인 인권위원은 헌법적 관점에서 판단하므로 문제되지 않을 것으로 보임


나. 시민사회 참여가 보장된 인권위원 추천위원회의 대법원 설치

- 내부 인사가 아닌 외부 인사를 지명하면서 대법원 내부에 추춴위원회를 두는 것은 전례가 없음

- 외부의 참여가 보장된 추천은 대법원장에게 독자적 지명권을 준 현행 규정의 취지에 맞지 않음


다. 인권위원 능력 및 자격에 관한 가이드라인을 제시할 경우 협력가능성

- 현행 인권위법 제5조 제2항에 규정되어 있는 정도로 충분해보이지만, 누구나 수긍할 수 있는 수준의 가이드라인이라면 협력하지 못할 이유는 없음.


대법원의 입장을 보면 가이드라인상의 "시민사회 의견이 반영되는 후보자추추천위원회"를 사법부내에 설치할 의사가 전혀 없음을 알 수 있습니다. 대법원 인사총괄심의관의 의견의 당부당은 별론으로 하더라도, 인권위원회가 보도자료를 통해 "실질화"한다는 것은 애초부터 불가능한 것으로 보입니다. 


정리하면, 국가인권위원회는 구속력없는 가이드라인과 내부규정이라는 형식으로 ICC권고를 이행할 수 있다고 판단하였지만, 이는 현실적으로 실현불가능한 결과를 예정한 기획입니다. 다시 말해 ICC가 첫번째 등급 재심사에서부터 권고하였던 인권위원 선임에 있어서 "공적 협의(Public Consultation)이나 시민사회(Civil Society)의 참여"가 전혀 보장되지 않는 결과를 낳는 것입니다. 이러한 이유에서 ICC는 국가인권위원회의 대응이 충분하지 않다고 평가한 것이죠.



(2) 국가위원회법 개정안은 시민사회의 참여가 배제되어 있습니다. 


국가인권위원회법 개정안 중 인권위원 선임과 관련한 부분에는  "시민사회(Civil Society)"라는 단어가 없습니다. 

그럼 가이드라인에는 있을까요? 없습니다. "시민사회"라는 단어는 인권위원 공석과 선임절차 공지의 객체로만 표시되어 있습니다. 


더욱 주목할 것은 국가인권위원회법 개정안에 "시민사회"의 삭제는 의도적으로 이루어진 것이라는 점입니다. 


국가인권위원회법 개정안의 (안)에는 원래 "시민사회"라는 텍스트가 있었습니다. 

제5조 제3항 국회, 대통령, 대법원장은 위원을 선출 또는 지명함에 있어 시민사회가 참여하는 투명하고 공정한 절차에 따라 인권의 보호와 향상에 관련한 다양한 사회계층의 다원적 대표성이 반영될 수 있도록 하여야 한다


그런데 의결된 국가인권위원회법 개정안에는 "시민사회가 참여하는"이라는 부분이 삭제되었습니다. 


③ 국회, 대통령, 대법원장은 위원을 선출 또는 지명함에 있어 투명하고 공정한 절차에 따라 인권의 보호와 향상에 관련된 다양한 사회계층의 대표성이 반영될 수 있도록 하여야 한다.


국가인권위원회법 개정안을 의결하는 전원위원회 회의록(14년 제15차 전원위원회 회의록)을 보면 "의도적"으로 이 텍스트를 삭제한 이유를 알 수 있습니다. 


(    )위원 :'시민사회' 이게 "civil society"라고 번역이 됐는지 몰라요. 그냥 시민사회하고 국민하고 차이가 있냐? 저는 없다고 봅니다. 시민사회가 하는 개념정리하고 국민의 개념정리하고 뭐가 다르냐, 저는 같다고 보거든요. 그러면 결국 이것은 '국민이 참여하는 투명하고 공정한 절차에 따라' , 시민사회단체하고 시민사회하고 다른 것이거든요. 그러면 '국민이 참여하는 투명하고 공정한 절차' 이것은 직접민주주의를 예기하는 것이고 저희 헌법체계는 대의민주주의를 채택하고 있지 않습니까? 저희가 4800만이 아고라 광장 가서 투표 못하니까 그 대표기관인 국회의원을 선출해서 국회를 운영하고 있거든요.


(   )위원 :  (    )님 말씀을 들으면서 이제 법이라는 것은 그런 겁니다. 다 아시겠지만, 법과 가이드라인하고 원칙하고 그것은 다른 것이거든요. 이 조문을 보면 '시민사회가 참여하는 투명하고 공정한 절차' 그러면 시민사회가 참여하는 투명한 절차가 없으면 인권위원을 선출하고 지명하지 못하는 것이지요. 이것은 잘 판단해야 하는 문제입니다. 그러니까 파리원칙이라는 것이 절대 보편적인 원칙이 아니고 파리원칙이 각 나라에 따라서 조금의 융통성을 그 원칙 자체에서도 인정을 하고 있거든요. 그러면 법이라는 것은 조문은 명확하고 구체성이 있어야 됩니다. 그래야 되기 때문에 법에서는 규정하지만 저희가 가이드라인을 할 때 가이드라인에 담아서 이러이러한 것으로 해서 이런 사람에게 대해서 이렇게 해 달라고 이것은 저희가 권고를 할 수 있지만  …(중략) . 법이라는 것은 이렇게 불명확하고 구체성이 결여된 것을 추상적인 용어로 법에 담을 수 없다는 것이지요.


※(    ) 부분은 전원위원회 회의록 정보공개청구에 대한 일부공개결정에 따라 음영처리된 부분입니다. 


그러니까 국가인권위원회 인권위원들은 "시민사회의 참여"라는 텍스트는 "국민의 참여"로 해석될 수 있는 등 불명확하기 때문에 삭제하여야 한다는 것입니다. 


위 (   ) 인권위원처럼 시민사회를 해석한다면, ICC 등급심사소위가 또다시 등급심사를 보류하면서 한국 국가인권위원회에 요청하는 " 공식적, 비공식적 메커니즘을 포함하는 시민사회와의 협력"은 어떻게 이해하여야 할까요?


It requests the NHRCK to provide information on its engagement with civil society including any formal and informal mechanisms,…. 


정리하면, 국가인권위원회는 시민사회(civil society)라는 문언을 삭제함으로써 국가인권기구에 기본적으로 요청되는 시민사회와의 협력을 방기하는 것입니다. 그리고 이는 매우 의도적인 것입니다. 이러한 점 때문에 ICC 등급심사소위가 인권위의 등급심사를 보류한 것입니다. 



7. 국가인권위원회 문제 해결을 위한 향후의 과제와 대응방안


Q 정말 국가인권위의 가이드라인이나 개정안이 문제가 있네요. 그렇다면 무엇을 어떻게 해야 할까요?


사실 국가인권위원회가 계속하여 ICC의 등급보류를 받거나 등급강등을 받더라도 가시적이고 직접적인 피해를 입는 것은 아닙니다. 국제사회에서 망신을 당할 뿐이죠. 


중요한 것은 ICC의 등급을 강등시킬 것을 관철하는 문제가 아니라 이를 지렛대 삼아 국가인권위의 독립성과 위원선임의 투명성을 확보하는 것입니다. 이것이 진정으로 국가인권위원회의 제자리를 찾아주기 위한 행동인 것이죠. 


그렇기 위해서 가장 중요한 것은 국가인권위원회 스스로의 노력입니다. 발의를 준비중인 국가인권위원회법 개정안과 가이드라인의 문제점이 노출되었다면 이를 변경할 수 없는지를 고민해보아야 합니다. 변경이 절차상 불가능하다면 기존의 가이드라인을 바탕으로 하여 독립성을 확보하기 위한 노력을 스스로 해야 합니다. 


예를 들어보겠습니다. 


최근 청와대가 최이우 목사를 비상임인권위원으로 선임하였습니다. 국가인권위원회가 위 정책권고와 가이드라인 제정을 위한 전원위원회 의결을 한 날짜가 9월 22일입니다(보도자료 바로 가기). 그리고 청와대가 최이우 목사를 임명한 날짜가 11월 3일입니다. 적어도 국가인권위원회의 정책권고와 가이드라인의 내용이 비공식적으로라도 정부에 통고되었을 것입니다. 


그런데, 이 최이우 목사의 인권위원 선임과정에 정책권고와 가이드라인의 어떤 것도 반영된 것이 없습니다. 심지어 많은 시민사회단체들은 최이우목사의 선임결정을 언론보도를 통해 알게 되었을 정도로 인권위원선정은 선임기관에 의해 비공식적으로 이루어졌습니다. 


성소수자차별에 찬성하는 등 인권위원으로서의 자격조차 구비하지 못한 최이우목사가 별다는 제지 없이 인권위원으로 선임될 수 있었던 것은 최이우목사가 인권위원으로 선임될 것인지 사전에 알려지지 않았고, 따라서 최이우목사에 대한 시민사회에서의 검증이 이루어지지 않았기 때문입니다. 그렇기 때문에 선임기관이 아무런 꺼리낌없이 국가인권위원회법에 반하는 의견을 가진 사람이 인권위원에 선임하는 것입니다. 


이에 대하여 국가인권위원회는 공식적으로 문제제기를 하여야 합니다. 정부가 가이드라인 수용을 불수용시 이를 공표하는 등의 인권위법에 근거한 수단을 활용하여야 정부를 압박하여야 합니다. 스스로의 독립성 확보를 위한 노력을 경주하여야 합니다. 


인권위법 개정도 중요한 문제입니다. 시민사회에서 줄기차게 요구하여 왔던 후보자추천위원회의 도입을 위한 개정안을 마련하고 현재의 개정안에는 의도적으로 빠진 "시민사회의 참여"를 추가하여야 합니다. 


궁극적으로는 올 해 7월에 예정된 새로운 인권위원장 선임에 초점을 맞추고 이러한 운동을 전개해야 합니다. (끝)


글_김동현

 

 

출처: http://hopeandlaw.org/440


 

 


국가인권위원회 등급보류 결정의 의미와 향후 과제


1. 들어가며


최근 국가인권위원회에 대한 등급이 보류되었다는 기사를 보신 적이 있을 겁니다


인권기구 국제 연합체인 국가인권기구 국제조정위원회’(ICC)가 지난 3월에 이어 최근 재심사에서도 국가인권위원회에 등급보류판정을 내렸다. ICC는 인권위가 추진하고 있는 인권위원 임명절차를 개선해 독립성 확보하려는 노력이 여전히 미흡한 것으로 판단했다”  (기사 바로 가기)

 

국가인권위원회가 무슨 쇠고기도 아니고 무슨 등급결정?? 그리고 등급이 하향되면 어떤 영향이 있길래 이렇게 난리일까 하는 의문이 들만 한데요. 등급보류의 의미는 무엇이고 ICC가 인권위에 등급보류결정을 한 까닭을 알아볼까요??



2. 국제조정기구란?

국제조정기구란 무엇인가요?

국제조정기구의 정식 명칭은 인권의 증진과 보호를 위한 국가기구들의 국제 조정 위원회(Association International Coordinating Committee of National Institutions for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights)”으로, 보통 ICC라고 일컬어집니다.

Q 국제조정기구의 법적 성격은 무엇인가요?

ICC는 엄밀히 말하자면 조약이나 헌장에 의하여 설립된 국제기구가 아니라, 1993년 스위스 민법에 의하여 설립된 비영리법인이며 그 구성원들은 이 조직에 가입하는 각국의 국가인권기구입니다. 어찌 보면 스위스 민법상의 단체에 불과하다고 볼 수도 있지만 UN 국제인권위원회 결의(United Nations Commission on Human Rights resolution 2005/74)에 의하여 조직의 설립이 지지되었고, UN 인권이사회(United Nations Human Rights Council)에의 참여자격이 부여된다는 점(United Nations Human Rights Council resolution 5/1, Rule 7 (b))에서 법인격이 국제적으로도 인정된다고 볼 수 있습니다.

Q 국제조정기구의 목적과 역할은 무엇인가요?

ICC는 각 국가인권기구의 활동이 파리원칙에 부합하도록 하고, 인권의 보호와 증진을 위한 활동에서 리더쉽을 제공하는 것을 목적으로 합니다(규정 제5).

구체적으로는 다음과 같은 역할을 수행합니다(ICC 홈페이지 참조).

- UN인권이사회와 조약기구와의 국가인권기구 업무 지원

- 정례 미팅 등을 통한 각 국가인권기구 간의 정보공유와 협력

- 각 국가인권기구의 등급심사

- 유엔 내부적인, 그리고 국가 및 다른 국제기구와의 국가인권기구들의 역할 증진

- 유엔최고인권대표(OHCHR)과의 협력속에서 능력 배양의 제공

- 위협에 놓여져 있는 국가인권기구들의 지원

- 요청이 있을 경우, 국내정부에 국가인권기구의 설립 지원


3. 등급심사?


Q 등급심사(Accredition)란 무엇인가요? 언제 심사를 받나요?

ICC에 가입하는 국가인권기구들은 파리원칙을 얼마나 잘 이행하고 있는지에 따라 등급을 부여받습니다(가입시 심사, 규정 제10). 그리고 정기적인 재심사를 통해 등급이 바뀔 수 있습니다(정기 재심사, 규정 제15). 때로는 특별한 상황의 변화에 따라 ICC의 등급심사를 받을 수도 있습니다(특별 심사, 16).

 

Q 등급 심사의 기준은 무엇인가요?

파리원칙의 준수여부를 기준으로 합니다. 그리고 ICC는 파리원칙의 이행과 해석을 위해서 일반견해(General Observations)를 발전시켜왔습니다. 


파리 원칙이란?

정식 명칭은 Principles Relating to the Status on National Institutions입니다.(파리원칙 바로 가기)

 

파리원칙은 UN 총회 결의(48/134)로 채택되었고, 국제인권기구의 지위에 대한 일반적인 기준을 제시하고 있습니다.

(1) 권한과 책임

(2) 구성의 독립성과 다원성의 보장

(3) 운영방식

(4) 준사법적 권한을 포함한 기타 지위

파리 원칙은 구체적으로 국가인권기구가 다음의 여섯 가지 요건을 충족할 것을 규정합니다.

- 보편적 인권 규범과 기준에 근거한 폭넓은 권한(Mandate and competence: a broad mandate, based on universal human rights norms and standards)

- 정부로부터의 자율성(Autonomy from Government)

- 헌법 혹은 제정법에 의한 독립성의 보장(Independence guaranteed by statute or Constitution)

- 다양성(Pluralism)

- 충분한 자원(Adequate resources)

- 충분한 조사권한(Adequate powers of investigation)


Q 어떤 등급이 있고, 각 등급은 어떻게 차이가 나는 것이에요?


A, B, C의 등급이 있습니다.


 A

 Voting Member

 파리 원칙을 완전히 준수함

 B

 Observer member 

 파리 원칙을 완전히는 준수하지 않거나 심사 판단을 위한 충분한 자료를 제출하지 않음 

 C

 Non-member

 파리 원칙을 준수하지 않음 

 


(1) A등급의 경우 국제인권기구간의 국제적, 지역적 회의에 모두 참여하여 투표할 수 있고, ICC내에 사무소를 설치할 수 있고, 유엔 인권이사회에 참여할 수 있습니다. 

(2) B등급의 경우 국제적, 지역적 회의에 참여할 수는 있으나 투표권이 없을 뿐만 아니라 ICC내에 사무소를 설치 할 할 수도 없습니다. 그리고 유엔인권이사회 회의에서 토론하거나 서류를 제출할 수 없습니다.

(3) 마지막으로 C등급의 경우 ICC회의에 참석은 가능하나 ICC와 관련한 어떠한 권리나 특권도 향유하지 못합니다. 


Q. 다른 나라들의 국가인권기구의 등급은 어느정도에요?


2014년 5월에 취합된 국가인권기구들의 현황을 보면,


(A)등급이 71개, (B)등급이 25개, (C)등급이 10개로 약 70%가 국가인권기구가 A등급을 유지하고 있습니다. 




주요 국가별로 보면, 독일(Deutsches Institut für Menschenrechte), 영국(Equality and Human Rights Commission)은 A등급을, 노르웨이(Norwegian Centre for Human Rights)는 B등급을, 홍콩(Equal Opportunities Commission) 은 C등급을 받았습니다. 

 


4. 한국 국가인권위원회 등급 심사의 경과, 등급보류결정의 이유


Q 그동안 대한민국 국가인권위에 대한 등급심사는 몇 번 이루어졌고, 그 결과는 어땠나요?


2001년 대한민국 국가인권위원회 설립된 이후 ICC는 3번의 등급심사를 실시했습니다. 


(1) 2004년 대한민국 ICC 가입시 심사에서 A등급을 부여받았습니다. 


(2) 2008년 11월 첫번째 정기 재심사에서 A등급을 유지했습니다. 그러나 다음과 같은 지적을 받았습니다(2008. 11. ICC 승인심사소위 보고서 바로가기). 


1) 국가인권위원회가 국가재정법에서 "중앙정부조직"으로 규정되어 있는데,이는 "정부로부터의 자율성"을 충족하지 못하고, "독립적 기관"에 반하는 것이다.

2) 국가인권위원회법 제5조에 의하면, 인권위원 선임의 절차에는 인권위원 후보자의 선정과 자격심사에 있어서 공적 협의(public consultation)이나 시민사회(civil society)의 참여가 제공되지 않았다.



Q. 그럼, 올해 4월의 등급심사 보류결정의 이유는 무엇인가요?


ICC는 올해 4월 한국 국가인권위원회에 대한 두번째 정기 재심사에서 등급 보류결정(deferral)을 하였습니다. 


그 이유로서, 승인심사소위는 첫번째 심사에서의 지적사항이 이행되지 않았고, 한국 국가인권위원회에서는 이에 대해 충분한 설명도 제공하지 않았다고 지적하였습니다(2014. 4. ICC 승인심사소위 보고서 바로가기).


구체적인 지적사항은 아래와 같습니다. 


1. 위원선발


- 승인소위는 이전에 파리원칙에 부합하는 투명하고 참여적인 위원선발 절차의 입법 실패에 대한 우려를 표하였다. 

- 승인소위는 국가인권위원회법 제5조 제2항의 인권위원 자격 조항에 충분히 투명하고 참여적인 선발 절차, 실질적 자격에 근거한 선발절차가 없다. 

- 위 조항은 (1) 위원 공석시의 공고, (2) 위원신청자의 실질적 자격을 평가하는 분명하고 통일된 기준, (3) 위원의 신청, 심사, 선벌에 있어서의 폭넓은 협의 혹은 참여  등이 모두 규정되어 있지 않다. 

- 투명하고 참여적인 선발과정이 관련된 법률(legislation), 법규(regulations) 혹은 구속력있는 행정 지침(binding administrative guidelines)에 포함되어야 한다. 그리고 실질적 자격에 기반한 선발을 증진하고 다양성을 보장하는 절차는 국가인권위원회의 지도적 인사의 리더쉽과 국가인권위원회의 독립성을 보장하기 위하여 필요하다.


국가인권위원회가 다음의 사항들이 포함되는 절차의 형성을 옹호할 것이 요청된다.

 

a) 공석에 대한 정보를 널리 홍보할 것

b) 다양한 범위의 사회계층으로부터 추천받을 수 있는 잠재적 후보의 수를 최대화화할 것

c) 신청, 심사, 선정 및 임명 과정에 있어서 광범위한 협의 및/또는 참여를 증진할 것

d) 사전에 결전된, 객관적이고, 공개적인 기준을 바탕으로 지원자들을 심사할 것

e) 임명된 자들이 자신이 대표하는 기구의 대표자로서가 아닌, 개인의 자격으로서 활동할 수 있도록 할 것


2. 다양성


- 국가인권위원회법에는 위원 선발에 있어서 젠더다양성을 고려한 규정이 있지만, 다른 다양성을 보장하는 규정들을 포함하고 있지 않다. 


3. 기능적 면책과 독립성


- 국가인권위원회 구성원이 직무상 선의로 한 행위에 대하여 법적 책임을 면제하는 조항이 없다.



정리하면, ICC 승인심사소위는 국가인권위원의 선발과정이 투명하고 참여적이지 않다는 점, 인권위원의 다양성 보장규정이 부정하다는 점 및 구성원의 기능적 면책과 독립성을 보장하는 규정의 미비를 근거로 한국의 국가인권위원회가 파리원칙에 부합하는지 여부가 불분명하다고 판단하고 심사를 보류한 것입니다. 




(하)에서 계속됩니다

글_김동현

특별한 인용이 없을 경우 이글은 ICC홈페이지(http://nhri.ohchr.org/), ICC 규정(ICC Statue)의 내용을 참고한 것입니다

저작자 표시 비영리 동일 조건 변경 허락

UN General Assembly

69th Session

Third Committee

 

18 November 2014 

 

 

UN 총회

제69차 회기

제3위원회

 

2014. 11. 18.

 

 

STATUS OF ACTION ON DRAFT PROPOSALS

 

결의안에 대한 ... 상황

 

Symbol

문서기호

Agenda Item

의제 안건

Title

제목

Main Sponsor

제안국

Intro

 

PBIs

 

Action

 

A/C.3/69/L.28

68 (c)

Situation of human rights in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea

 

조선민주주의인민공화국에서의 인권상황

Italy (on behalf of the EU) and Japan

 

이탈리아 (EU를 대표하여) 및 일본

42nd Mtg

06-Nov

 (Italy)

 

제42차 회의

2014. 11. 6.

 (이탈리아)

None

 

없음

 

A/C.3/69/L.28/Rev.1

None

 

없음

Adopted by Vote:

 111-19-55

47th Mtg

 18-Nov

 

표결에 의한 가결:

찬성 111표/반대 19표/기권 55표

제47차 회의

2014. 11. 18.

A/C.3/69/L.63

68 (c)

Amendment to A/C.3/69/L.28

 

A/C.3/69/L.28에 대한 수정안

Cuba

 

쿠바

 

None

 

없음

Rejected by Vote:

40-77-50

46th Mtg

18-Nov

 

표결에 의한 부결:

찬성 40표/반대 77표/기권 50표

제46차 회의

2014. 11. 18.


General Assembly

69th Session

Third Committee

 

18 November 2014

 

 

UN총회

제69차 회기

제3위원회

 

2014. 11. 18.

 

 

[46th Meeting/제46차 회의]

http://webtv.un.org/meetings-events/general-assembly/main-committees/3rd-committee/watch/third-committee-46th-meeting-–-69th-general-assembly/3897813256001 

  

 

[47th Meeting/제47차 회의]

 

http://webtv.un.org/meetings-events/general-assembly/main-committees/3rd-committee/watch/third-committee-47th-meeting-–-69th-general-assembly/3899324250001


[Meetings Coverage and Press Releases/회의취재 및 보도자료]

 

18 November 2014

 

GA/SHC/4122

Intensely Debating Targeted Country Reviews, Third Committee Approves Draft Texts on Iran, Syria, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea

Sixty-ninth session,

46th & 47th Meetings (AM & PM)

Dialogue, Not Politically Driven Actions, Triggers Human Rights Advancements, Delegates Hear During Day-Long Discussions

 

Differences on human rights issues should be resolved through constructive dialogue and not confrontational politically motivated actions, the Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) heard today as it concluded its discussion on the Human Rights Report and took action on a package of draft resolutions on human rights questions and situations in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Syria and Iran.

During a heated debate on a draft resolution on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, which was approved by a recorded vote of 111 in favour to 19 against, with 55 abstentions, many delegates voiced strong positions against the text.  Of particular concern were operative paragraphs 7 and 8.

By the terms of operative paragraph 7, the General Assembly would acknowledge the commission’s finding that the body of testimony gathered and the information received provide reasonable grounds to believe that crimes against humanity have been committed in the Democratic People’s Republic.  The latter operative paragraph would have the Assembly decide to submit the report of the commission of inquiry to the Security Council, and encourages the Council to consider the relevant conclusions and recommendations of the commission and take appropriate action to ensure accountability, including through consideration of referral of the situation in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to the International Criminal Court and consideration of the scope for effective targeted sanctions against those who appear to be most responsible for acts that the commission has said may constitute crimes against humanity.

Prior to voting on that draft text, the Committee rejected a draft resolution, by a recorded vote of 40 in favour to 77 against, with 50 abstentions.  That draft text, tabled by Cuba, contained a proposal to replace the two abovementioned paragraphs with the a text that would have the Assembly decide to adopt a new cooperative approach to the consideration of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea that will enable:  the establishment of dialogues by representatives of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea with States and groups of States interested in the issue; the development of technical cooperation between the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea; and the visit of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to the country.

Ensuing discussions saw a range of positions among delegates.  Emphasizing that human rights should not be a pretext for political gains as country-specific resolutions undermined state sovereignty, a representative of Venezuela said the focus should be on taking a constructive approach to human rights issues. 

Representing a view held by a number of countries and the European Union, Japan’s representative said the Human Rights Council’s Commission of Inquiry had submitted an unprecedented and historic report on the human rights situation in the country, where systematic, widespread and gross human rights violations were being committed.

Rejecting those claims as well as the draft resolution, a delegate of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea said the Commission’s report was a compilation of groundless political allegations and had no credibility as an official United Nations document.  Ecuador’s representative said country-specific resolutions did not improve human rights situations, calling on all countries to make positive contributions to human rights mechanisms.

Representatives of India, Pakistan, Indonesia and Malaysia said that they preferred constructive dialogue that respected the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity, which was the reason their delegations had decided to abstain on the vote.

Similar points were raised when the Committee approved a draft text on the situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran, by a vote of 78 in favour to 35 against, with 69 abstentions.  Agreeing with the Non-Aligned Movement’s position, a number of speakers said the use of country-specific resolutions violated the principles of non-selectivity and objectivity based on the United Nations Charter.  Indeed, China’s representative said country-specific resolutions jeopardized trust and provoked confrontation among Member States.  However, Canada’s representative noted that there were extremely troubling developments in the human rights situation of Iran that had justified the draft text.

Iran’s representative said the draft text ignored the readiness of his country to cooperate with the United Nations human rights mechanisms as well as its readiness to report and implement recommendations received through the Council’s universal periodic review.  Politically motivated vendettas were counterproductive and pointless, he said.

(...)

 

Background

The Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) met this morning to continue and conclude its general discussion on the report of the Human Rights Council (documents A/69/53 and A/69/53/Add.1).  For background, see Press Release GA/SHC/4121.

(...)

Under its agenda item on human rights situations and reports of special rapporteurs and representatives, the Committee would take action on a draft resolution on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (A/C.3/69/L.28/Rev.1) and amendments on the aforementioned draft text contained in document A/C.3/69/L.63.

(...)

 

Statements

(...)

 

Right of Reply

(...)

 

Introductions of and Action on Draft Resolutions

(...)

The Committee then turned to its agenda item on the situation of human rights and reports of the special rapporteurs, first taking up draft texts on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

A representative of Cuba, speaking on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, said that politicization and double standards were evident in the adoption of resolutions against countries that were part of the Movement.  The universal periodic review mechanism was the primary tool for considering human rights issues and such discussions should take place in an atmosphere of constructive dialogue.  The continued selectivity of some resolutions that targeted specific countries had violated the principles of universality and objectivity.  He called for all countries to vote against such politically motivated resolutions.

The Committee then took up a draft text on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (document A/C.3/69/L.28/Rev.1), introduced by Italy’s representative, on behalf of the European Union and Japan.

Regarding a proposed amendment to “L.28/Rev.1”, contained in document A/C.3/69/L.63, Cuba’s representative said that his country wished to maintain the first part of the proposed amendment.  Having said that, he added, Cuba would vote against the resolution.  Cuba was not trying to prevent the Council from looking at the report of the Commission of Inquiry.  Rather, his delegation wished to take a principled position on the matter.  A number of delegates had referred to the trigger mechanism by which the Human Rights Council was becoming a tool for some countries, who were not interested in dialogue, to use to attack other countries.  The resolution was being used to establish a pattern that would permanently endanger all developing countries.  Cuba called for a greater spirit of cooperation and an opportunity for the country in question to clarify matters.  “We are trying to ensure that a precedent is not being set here,” he stressed.

Making a general statement, a representative of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea reiterated his delegation’s support for the statement delivered by Cuba’s representative.  He said that his country had consistently maintained its commitment to promoting and protecting its people’s rights and had fulfilled its obligations by taking sincere measures.  Unfortunately, he said, the European Union and Japan had chosen to seek confrontation by enforcing a draft text that had no relevance whatsoever.

Also making a general statement, a representative of China said that his country had maintained that differences on human rights issues should be resolved through constructive dialogue.  China was opposed to making human rights a pretext for political gains.  The Council was not the right forum for dealing with such issues and China would support the amendment [“L.63”] tabled by Cuba.

Italy’s representative said that the amendment was not agreeable to the co-sponsors and, therefore, his delegation called for a vote on the amendment.

Japan’s representative also called for a vote on the amendment.

A representative of Belarus expressed support for the Non-Aligned Movement and said that her country rejected resolutions that had resulted in interferences in the internal affairs of a country.  Country-specific resolutions, such as the one currently before the Committee, undermined sovereignty and, therefore, Belarus would vote in favour of Cuba’s amendment.

A representative of Venezuela said that his delegation supported the proposed amendment.  The focus should be on taking a constructive approach to human rights issues. As a result, his country did not support politically motivated draft resolutions.

A representative of the Russian Federation said that the draft resolution was not a balanced document and the amendment proposed by Cuba would give it a more balanced nature.  He reiterated his delegation’s opposition of country-specific resolutions.  “This method of work is ineffective and is only likely to exacerbate conflict between Member States,” he concluded.

A representative of South Africa expressed support for the Cuban proposal and said the draft resolution was in itself contradictory.  Politicization and referring matters to the Security Council were two issues of concern, he stressed, adding that the Security Council did not need to be advised by the General Assembly to discuss any issue related to peace and security.

Italy’s representative, also making a general statement before the vote on “L.63”, said that a lack of accountability at the national level left no option but to carry the issue to the international level.  He pointed out that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea had shown no willingness to cooperate with the human rights mechanisms.

In a general statement, Japan’s representative stated that there were systematic, widespread and gross human rights violations in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.  Therefore, his delegation could not agree with the amendment proposed by Cuba, which he said was a huge step backwards.

A representative of Iran said that the draft resolution could create a dangerous precedent.  Paragraphs 7 and 8 were against the United Nations Charter and the principle of cooperation.  The Security Council was not the place for considering human rights issues, she said.  For its part, Iran would vote in favour of the amendment.

The United States representative, speaking in explanation of vote before the vote, said that her delegation was opposed to the proposed amendment, which would strip the resolution of crucial language regarding accountability.  The United States had listened to recent overtures for dialogue by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, she said, “but we have heard this before.”  The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea must stop committing human rights violations instead of offering words, she stressed, calling on all Member States to vote against the amendment.

A representative of Albania, also speaking in explanation of vote before the vote, said that the amendment would eliminate two important paragraphs based on the fact that the Commission of Inquiry had not made a visit to the country.  But as the Commission itself had reported, despite numerous efforts, the Commission had received no response from the country.  The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea was a country with a dark past, he said, and its violations had no parallel in the contemporary world.  He invited all countries to vote against the amendment.

A representative of Switzerland, speaking on behalf of Australia, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway, said they would vote against the amendment proposed by Cuba and encouraged all Member States to do so.

A representative of Ecuador, also speaking in explanation of vote before the vote, said that the position of Ecuador on the amendment did not prejudice his country’s principled position on human rights.  “We reject human rights violations wherever they occur,” he stressed.  Nevertheless paragraphs 7 and 8 ran counter to the principle of cooperation in human rights.  Therefore, Ecuador would vote in favour of the proposed amendment.

Taking action, the Committee then rejected the draft amendment “L.63” by a recorded vote of 40 in favour to 77 against, with 50 abstentions.

Speaking in explanation of vote after the vote, Uruguay‘s representative said that her country had decided to co-sponsor the draft resolution on the human rights situation in Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.  While Uruguay supported the work of the Commission of Inquiry, her country understood that the approval of that resolution [“L.28/Rev.1”] would not constitute a precedent in terms of referring issues to the Security Council.

Next the Committee turned to a draft resolution on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (document A/C.3/69/L.28/Rev.1).

Japan’s representative said the Commission of Inquiry had submitted an unprecedented and historic report on the human rights situation in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.  The findings were based on public hearings involving more than 80 victims and on 240 confidential interviews with witnesses, he said, which had concluded that systematic, widespread and gross human rights violations were being committed.  One of the cases identified was the abduction of persons from foreign countries, he said, urging the secure and immediate return of those abductees and for those responsible for human rights violations to be held to account.

The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea‘s representative said that his delegation was profoundly grateful to those delegations that had supported the amendment [“L.63”].  Turning to the draft resolution under consideration [L.28/Rev.1”], he rejected it categorically and said that it had no relevance to genuine human rights protection.  The report of the Commission of Inquiry was based on fabricated testimonies by a handful of defectors who had fled the country after committing crimes.  The report was a compilation of groundless political allegations and had no credibility as an official United Nations document.  His country had consistently prioritized dialogue, but the European Union and Japan were provoking confrontation by pushing ahead the draft resolution.  People around the world remembered how the United States unleashed a “war against Yugoslavia” in the name of “humanitarian intervention”.  The sponsors of the draft should be held responsible for destroying the opportunity for human rights cooperation, he said, calling on all Member States to vote against the draft.

Syria’s representative, speaking before the vote and associating himself with the Non-Aligned Movement, expressed regret that some States had imposed resolutions for political reasons.  Some States had used pressure on others, threatening the foundations of their relations and destroying the common understanding on human rights, he added.  He rejected the selective approach taken and efforts made to interfere in the affairs of other States, he said, describing them as actions that were incompatible with the United Nations Charter.  Politicized resolutions were creating fewer opportunities to reinforce human rights around the world, he said, noting that the universal periodic review was the only mechanism to analyse human rights.  He said his delegation would vote against the resolution.

Also speaking in explanation of vote before the vote, Iran’s representative said that the practice of country-specific resolutions and the exploitation of that mechanism for political ends were violations of the United Nations Charter.  Her delegation would vote against all country-specific resolutions.

Also speaking in explanation of vote before the vote, Cuba’s representative said that his delegation had maintained a principled position against country-specific resolutions, especially when they had targeted developing countries.  The application of double standards in considering human rights issues was what led to the disintegration of the Human Rights Commission.  The Council and the universal periodic review provided a mechanism for genuine dialogue on human rights issues.  His delegation would not be complicit in referring that issue to the Security Council and the International Criminal Court.

Also speaking in explanation of vote before the vote, a representative of Belarus said country-specific resolutions were not in line with the United Nations Charter and principles.  The sponsors of such resolutions should not impose their own vision of implementing human rights, she added, saying her delegation would vote against the resolution.

Venezuela’s representative said he did not support politically motivated resolutions, as they were violations of the United Nations Charter.  The practice of adopting politically motivated resolutions that were country-specific ignored the principle impartiality that should govern human rights mechanisms, he added.  The submission of politically motivated resolutions was undermining the mandate of the Human Rights Council, he said, underlining that his delegation would vote against the resolution.

A representative of Ecuador reaffirmed the validity of the universal periodic review as the sole mechanism to analyse human rights situations as it was carried out in an equal and non-political footing.  Targeting some States through country-specific resolutions did not improve the human rights situation and did not contribute to dialogue, he added, calling on all countries to make positive contributions to human rights mechanisms.  He expressed his solidarity with the victims of human rights abuses and said Ecuador had abstained each year on the vote.  However, the current draft resolution was not consistent and his delegation would, therefore, vote against it.

The Committee then approved the draft text by a recorded vote of 111 in favour to 19 against, with 55 abstentions.

Speaking in explanation of position after the vote, a representative of India said that his delegation had abstained from voting on the resolution as a whole.  India had voted in favour of the amendment proposed by Cuba.  India was also unable to sign the statute of the International Criminal Court because the statute did not allow the Court to be free from political interference.  It also gave the Security Council powers that went beyond international laws.  In the current resolution, operative paragraphs 7 and 8 were the very reasons that had prevented India from joining the Rome Statute.  It was unfortunate that matters relating to human rights had been taken to a vote.  The United Nations should be a venue for cooperation on this matter, not confrontation.

Speaking in explanation of position after the vote, a representative of Pakistan said that as a firm believer in the universality of human rights, his country emphasized that efforts to advance the agenda of human rights at the global level should be pursued in a spirit of dialogue and cooperation.  Human rights violations were not confined to a single country.  Pakistan was opposed to the practice of “naming and shaming” through country-specific resolutions.  Referring matters to the International Criminal Court would further complicate the situation.  Therefore, Pakistan had abstained from the vote.

Indonesia’s representative, speaking in explanation of position after the vote, said that the resolution could have been adopted without a vote as in the past years.  There was a window of opportunity to achieve a consensus, but a lack of willingness from relevant parties had prevented that.  His country recognized the importance of the Human Rights Council and of dialogue in addressing human rights issues.  Therefore, his delegation had abstained from the vote.

Speaking in explanation of position after the vote, a representative of Myanmar said that his delegation, as a member of the Non-Aligned Movement, was opposed to country-specific resolutions.  The universal periodic review process was the most dependable and uncontroversial mechanism for advancing human rights around the world.  In line with that principled position, Myanmar had voted against the resolution.

Also speaking in explanation of position after the vote, a representative of Thailand said that her delegation had voted in favour of the draft resolution due to a concern for the worsening human rights situation, as reported by the Special Rapporteur.  She welcomed the willingness of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to work with the human rights mechanism and receive the visit of the Special Rapporteur.  She raised concerns on access to food, saying humanitarian assistance should be provided to all people without conditions.  Despite its vote in favour of the draft text, she reaffirmed her support for genuine dialogue and positive engagement with the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

A representative of Zimbabwe, also speaking in explanation of position after the vote, said that she did not agree with country-specific resolutions nor that the Security Council was the appropriate body to discuss human rights issues.  She had voted in favour of the amendment of the text as she had rejected the precedent that would have been set by the operational paragraphs under discussion.

Also speaking in explanation of position after the vote, a representative of Malaysia said that he preferred constructive dialogue that respected the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity.  As the text of the draft resolution called for the Security Council to refer the situation of Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to the International Criminal Court, Malaysia believed constructive dialogue should take precedence before any punitive measures were sought, which was the reason his delegation had decided to abstain on the vote

Also speaking in explanation of position after the vote, Brazil’s representative said that his delegation had voted in favour of the resolution.  The text had recognized that while the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea had made progress in a deeper engagement with the United Nations human rights system, there was room for more improvement.  While praising the Government’s decision to invite the Special Rapporteur to the country, Brazil was concerned at the conclusions in the report of the Commission of Inquiry and hoped that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea would make further progress towards the enjoyment of human rights.

In explanation of position after the vote, a representative of Lao People’s Republic said that his delegation shared the position that country-specific resolutions were not the right method for advancing human rights.  The current resolution went against the principles of non-politicization and respect for national sovereignty.  The universal periodic review was the best mechanism for reviewing human rights in any country.  Therefore, his delegation had voted against the resolution.

Also speaking in explanation of position after the vote, a representative of Viet Nam said that his delegation had voted against the resolution because constructive dialogue and discussion, through the universal periodic review mechanism, was the only and most appropriate way to examine a country’s human rights situation.  Viet Nam would continue to condemn all acts of abduction and send sympathies to victims.  His delegation called on the parties concerned to find a satisfactory solution through mutual dialogue.

Also speaking in explanation of position after the vote, Singapore’s representative said that her delegation had maintained a principled position against country-specific resolutions.  Singapore’s abstention, however, did not mean her country condoned the mistreatment of citizens.

In explanation of position after the vote, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s representative said there was no further need for human rights dialogue with the European Union, as its only political objective was to eliminate the ideal social system of his country.  Despite hostile forces, he added, the country would continue to safeguard its social system by all means.

Making a general statement, Norway’s representative said her delegation had supported the resolution due to deep concerns of human rights violations.  Welcoming the cooperation of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea with the Special Rapporteur, she called on the country to follow through on it.

(...)


Voting Results on Display

 

화면상의 표결 결과

 

 

Amendment to A/C.3/69/L.28 (proposed by Cuba)

A/C.3/69/L.28에 대한 정안 (쿠바의 제안)

Recorded Vote: Recorded vote on A/C.3/69/L.63 as orally revised

 

 

A/C.3/69/L.28/Rev.1

Recorded Vote: Recorded vote on A/C.3/69/L.28/Rev.1*


[Adopted Resolution/채택된 결의안]

 

Situation of human rights in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea

 

조선민주주의인민공화국에서의 인권상황

 

A/C.3/69/L.28/Rev.1

 

 

 

United Nations

 

A/C.3/69/L.28/Rev.1*

 

General Assembly

 

Distr.: Limited

14 November 2014

 

Original: English

 

 

Sixty-ninth session

Third Committee

Agenda item 68 (c)

Promotion and protection of human rights: human rights situations and reports of special rapporteurs and representatives

 

 

 

Albania, Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kiribati, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Micronesia (Federated States of), Monaco, Montenegro, Netherlands, Norway, Palau, Panama, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, San Marino, Seychelles, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, Tuvalu, Ukraine, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America and Uruguay and Vanuatu: revised draft resolution

 

 

Situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea

 

 

          The General Assembly,

          Reaffirming that all States have an obligation to promote and protect human rights and fundamental freedoms and to fulfil the obligations that they have undertaken under the various international instruments,

          Recalling all previous resolutions adopted by the General Assembly, the Commission on Human Rights and the Human Rights Council on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, including Assembly resolution 68/183 of 18 December 2013 and Council resolution 25/25 of 28 March 2014,[1] and mindful of the need for the international community to strengthen its coordinated efforts aimed at achieving the implementation of those resolutions,

          Deeply concerned at the grave human rights situation, the pervasive culture of impunity and the lack of accountability for human rights violations in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea,

          Welcoming the report of the commission of inquiry on human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea,[2] and expressing grave concern at the detailed findings contained therein,

          Noting the transmission of the report of the commission of inquiry to the Security Council on 14 April 2014,

          Recalling the responsibility of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to protect its population from crimes against humanity,

          Taking note of the report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, regretting that he still has not been allowed to visit the country and that he has received no cooperation from the authorities of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, and taking note also of the comprehensive report of the Secretary-General on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea submitted in accordance with resolution 68/183,

          Mindful that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,[3] the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights,3 the Convention on the Rights of the Child[4] and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women,[5] and recalling the concluding observations of the treaty bodies under the four treaties,

          Noting with appreciation the signature of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities[6] and the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography[7] by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, encouraging the Government to take speedy steps to ratify the Convention and the Optional Protocol, and urging the Government to fully respect the rights of persons with disabilities and children,

          Acknowledging the participation of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea in the second universal periodic review process, noting the Government’s acceptance of 113 out of the 268 recommendations contained in the outcome of the review[8] and its stated commitment to implement them and look into the possibility of implementing a further 58 recommendations, and emphasizing the importance of the implementation of the recommendations in order to address the grave human rights violations in the country,

          Noting with appreciation the collaboration established between the Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and the United Nations Children’s Fund and the World Health Organization in order to improve the health situation in the country, and the collaboration established with the United Nations Children’s Fund in order to improve the quality of education for children,

          Noting the decision on the resumption, on a modest scale, of the activities of the United Nations Development Programme in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, and encouraging the engagement of the Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea with the international community to ensure that the programmes benefit the persons in need of assistance,

          Noting also the cooperation between the Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and the World Food Programme, the United Nations Children’s Fund and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations on food security assessments, underscoring the importance of those assessments in analysing changes in the national, household and individual food security and nutritional situation and thereby in supporting donor confidence in the targeting of aid programmes, noting further the letter of understanding signed by the Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and the World Food Programme and the importance of further improvements in operating conditions, bringing access and monitoring arrangements closer to international standards for all United Nations entities, and noting with appreciation the work of international aid operators,

          Noting further the importance of the issue of international abductions and of the immediate return of all abductees, taking note of the outcome of the government-level consultation between the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and Japan in May 2014, and expecting concrete and positive results from the investigations being conducted by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea on all the Japanese nationals, in particular victims of abduction,

          Noting the importance of the inter-Korean dialogue, which could contribute to the improvement of the human rights and humanitarian situation in the country,

          Welcoming the resumption of the reunions of separated families across the border in February 2014, and, given that this is an urgent humanitarian concern of the entire Korean people, hoping that necessary arrangements for further reunions on a larger scale and a regular basis will be made by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, the Republic of Korea and members of the Korean diaspora,

          1.       Condemns the long-standing and ongoing systematic, widespread and gross violations of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, including those which the commission of inquiry on human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, established by the Human Rights Council in its resolution 22/13 of 21 March 2013,[9] has said may amount to crimes against humanity, and the continuing impunity for such violations;

          2.       Expresses its very serious concern at:

          (a)    The persistence of continuing reports of violations of human rights, including the detailed findings made by the commission of inquiry in its report, such as:

          (i)      Torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, including inhuman conditions of detention; rape; public executions; extrajudicial and arbitrary detention; the absence of due process and the rule of law, including fair trial guarantees and an independent judiciary; extrajudicial, summary and arbitrary executions; the imposition of the death penalty for political and religious reasons; collective punishments extending up to three generations; and the extensive use of forced labour;

          (ii)     The existence of an extensive system of political prison camps, where a vast number of persons are deprived of their liberty and subjected to deplorable conditions and where alarming violations of human rights are perpetrated, and in this regard strongly urges the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to immediately end this practice and to release all political prisoners unconditionally and without any delay;

          (iii)   The forcible transfer of populations and the limitations imposed on every person who wishes to move freely within the country and travel abroad, including the punishment of those who leave or try to leave the country without permission, or their families, as well as punishment of persons who are returned;

          (iv)    The situation of refugees and asylum seekers expelled or returned to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and sanctions imposed on citizens of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea who have been repatriated from abroad, leading to punishments of internment, torture, other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, sexual violence or the death penalty, and in this regard strongly urges all States to respect the fundamental principle of
non-refoulement, to treat those who seek refuge humanely and to ensure unhindered access to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and his Office, with a view to protecting the human rights of those who seek refuge, and once again urges States parties to comply with their obligations under the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees
[10] and the 1967 Protocol thereto[11] in relation to refugees from the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea who are covered by those instruments;

          (v)     All-pervasive and severe restrictions on the freedoms of thought, conscience, religion or belief, opinion and expression, peaceful assembly and association, the right to privacy and equal access to information, by such means as the persecution, torture and imprisonment of individuals exercising their freedom of opinion and expression, religion or belief, and their families, and the right of everyone to take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives, of his or her country;

          (vi)    Violations of economic, social and cultural rights, which have led to severe hunger, malnutrition, widespread health problems and other hardship for the population in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, in particular for women, children, persons with disabilities and the elderly;

          (vii)   Violations of the human rights and fundamental freedoms of women, in particular the creation of internal conditions that force women to leave the country and make them extremely vulnerable to trafficking in persons for the purpose of prostitution, domestic servitude or forced marriage and the subjection of women to forced abortions, gender-based discrimination, including in the political and social spheres, and other forms of sexual and gender-based violence;

          (viii)  Violations of the human rights and fundamental freedoms of children, in particular the continued lack of access to basic economic, social and cultural rights for many children, and in this regard notes the particularly vulnerable situation faced by, inter alia, returned or repatriated children, street children, children with disabilities, children whose parents are detained, children living in detention or in institutions and children in conflict with the law;

          (ix)    Violations of the human rights and fundamental freedoms of persons with disabilities, especially in the use of collective camps and of coercive measures that target the rights of persons with disabilities to decide freely and responsibly on the number and spacing of their children;

          (x)     Violations of workers’ rights, including the right to freedom of association and effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining, the right to strike as defined by the obligations of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights,3 and the prohibition of the economic exploitation of children and of any harmful or hazardous work of children as defined by the obligations of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea under the Convention on the Rights of the Child;4

          (xi)    Discrimination based on the songbun system, which classifies people on the basis of State-assigned social class and birth, and also includes consideration of political opinions and religion;

          (b)     The continued refusal of the Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to recognize the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea or to extend cooperation to the Special Rapporteur;

          (c)     The continued lack of acknowledgement by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea of the grave human rights situation in the country and its consequential lack of action to implement the recommendations contained in the outcome of its first universal periodic review;[12]

          (d)     The failure of the authorities of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to prosecute those responsible for human rights violations, including violations which the commission of inquiry has said may amount to crimes against humanity;

          3.       Underscores its very serious concern at the systematic abduction, denial of repatriation and subsequent enforced disappearance of persons, including those from other countries, on a large scale and as a matter of State policy, and in this regard strongly calls upon the Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea urgently to resolve these issues of international concern, in a transparent manner, including by ensuring the immediate return of abductees;

          4.       Expresses its very deep concern at the precarious humanitarian situation in the country, which could rapidly deteriorate owing to limited resilience to natural disasters and to government policies causing limitations in the availability of and access to food, compounded by structural weaknesses in agricultural production resulting in significant shortages of diversified food and the State restrictions on the cultivation and trade in foodstuffs, as well as the prevalence of chronic malnutrition, particularly among the most vulnerable groups, pregnant women, children, persons with disabilities and the elderly, and urges the Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, in this regard, to take preventive and remedial action, cooperating where necessary with international donor agencies and in accordance with international standards for monitoring humanitarian assistance;

          5.       Commends the Special Rapporteur for the activities undertaken so far and for his continued efforts in the conduct of his mandate despite the denial of access;

          6.       Also commends the work of the commission of inquiry and recognizes the importance of its report, and regrets that the commission received no cooperation from the authorities of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, including with regard to access to the country;

          7.       Acknowledges the commission’s finding that the body of testimony gathered and the information received provide reasonable grounds to believe that crimes against humanity have been committed in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, pursuant to policies established at the highest level of the State for decades;

          8.      Decides to submit the report of the commission of inquiry to the Security Council, and encourages the Council to consider the relevant conclusions and recommendations of the commission and take appropriate action to ensure accountability, including through consideration of referral of the situation in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to the International Criminal Court and consideration of the scope for effective targeted sanctions against those who appear to be most responsible for acts that the commission has said may constitute crimes against humanity;

          9.       Welcomes the steps taken by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights towards establishing a field-based structure in the Republic of Korea to strengthen the monitoring and documentation of the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, to ensure accountability, to provide the Special Rapporteur with increased support, to enhance the engagement and capacity-building of the Governments of all States concerned, civil society and other stakeholders and to maintain the visibility of the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, including through sustained communications, advocacy and outreach initiatives;

          10.     Calls upon Member States to undertake to ensure that the field-based structure of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights can function with independence, that it has sufficient resources and that it is not subjected to any reprisals or threats;

          11.     Strongly urges the Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to respect fully all human rights and fundamental freedoms and, in this regard:

          (a)     To immediately put an end to the systematic, widespread and grave violations of human rights emphasized above, inter alia, by implementing fully the measures set out in the above-mentioned resolutions of the General Assembly, the Commission on Human Rights and the Human Rights Council, and the recommendations addressed to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea by the Council in the context of the universal periodic review and by the commission of inquiry, the United Nations special procedures and treaty bodies;

          (b)     To protect its inhabitants, address the issue of impunity and ensure that those responsible for violations of human rights are brought to justice before an independent judiciary;

          (c)     To tackle the root causes leading to refugee outflows and prosecute those who exploit refugees by human smuggling, trafficking and extortion, while not criminalizing the victims;

          (d)     To ensure that citizens of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea who are expelled or returned to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea are able to return in safety and dignity, are treated humanely and are not subjected to any kind of punishment, and to provide information on their status and treatment;

          (e)     To extend its full cooperation to the Special Rapporteur, including by granting him full, free and unimpeded access to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, and to other United Nations human rights mechanisms so that a full needs assessment of the human rights situation may be made;

          (f)      To engage in technical cooperation activities in the field of human rights with the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and his Office, as pursued by the High Commissioner in recent years, with a view to improving the situation of human rights in the country, and to strive to implement the accepted recommendations stemming from the universal periodic review;

          (g)     To engage in cooperation with the International Labour Organization;

          (h)     To continue and reinforce its cooperation with United Nations humanitarian agencies;

          (i)      To ensure full, safe and unhindered access to humanitarian aid and take measures to allow humanitarian agencies to secure its impartial delivery to all parts of the country on the basis of need in accordance with humanitarian principles, as it pledged to do, and to ensure access to adequate food and implement more effective food security policies, including through sustainable agriculture, sound food production distribution measures and the allocation of more funds to the food sector, and to ensure adequate monitoring of humanitarian assistance;

          (j)      To further improve cooperation with the United Nations country team and development agencies so that they can directly contribute to improving the living conditions of the civilian population, including accelerating progress towards the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals, in accordance with international monitoring and evaluation procedures;

          (k)     To consider ratifying and acceding to remaining international human rights treaties, which would enable a dialogue with the human rights treaty bodies;

          12.     Urges the Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to implement the recommendations of the commission of inquiry without delay;

          13.     Encourages all Member States, the General Assembly, the Human Rights Council, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, the United Nations Secretariat, civil society organizations, foundations and engaged business enterprises and other stakeholders towards which the commission of inquiry has directed recommendations to implement or take forward those recommendations;

          14.     Welcomes the recent willingness expressed by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to consider human rights dialogues with States and groups of States, technical cooperation with the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and a country visit of the Special Rapporteur;

          15.     Calls upon the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to continue engaging constructively with international interlocutors with a view to promoting concrete improvements in the human rights situation on the ground, including through dialogues, official visits to the country and more people-to-people contact;

          16.     Decides to continue its examination of the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea at its seventieth session, and to this end requests the Secretary-General to submit a comprehensive report on the situation in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, and requests the Special Rapporteur to continue to report his findings and recommendations, as well as to report on the follow-up to the implementation of the recommendations of the commission of inquiry, in line with Human Rights Council resolution 25/25.1 



         *  Reissued for technical reasons on 18 November 2014.

         [1]           See Official Records of the General Assembly, Sixty-ninth Session, Supplement No. 53 (A/69/53), chap. II, sect. A.

         [2]           A/HRC/25/63.

         [3]           See resolution 2200 A (XXI), annex.

         [4]           United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 1577, No. 27531.

         [5]           Ibid., vol. 1249, No. 20378.

         [6]           Ibid., vol. 2515, No. 44910.

         [7]           Ibid., vol. 2171, No. 27531.

         [8]           A/HRC/27/10.

         [9]           See Official Records of the General Assembly, Sixty-eighth Session, Supplement No. 53 (A/68/53), chap. IV, sect. A.

        [10]           United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 189, No. 2545.

        [11]           Ibid., vol. 606, No. 8791.

        [12]           A/HRC/13/13.

 

 


Cuba's Amendment to A/C.3/69/L.28

 

A/C.3/69/L.28에 대한 쿠바의 개정안

 

A/C.3/69/L.63

 

United Nations

 

A/C.3/69/L.63

General Assembly

 

Distr.: Limited

13 November 2014

 

Original: English

 

 

Sixty-ninth session

Third Committee

Agenda item 68 (c)

Promotion and protection of human rights:

human rights situations and reports of special

rapporteurs and representatives

 

 

 

Cuba: amendment to draft resolution A/C.3/69/L.28

 

 

 Situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea

 

 

Delete operative paragraphs 7 and 8 and insert a new operative paragraph 7 reading as follows:

                    Decides to adopt a new cooperative approach to the consideration of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea that will enable: (a) the establishment of dialogues by representatives of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea with States and groups of States interested in the issue; (b) the development of technical cooperation between the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea; and (c) the visit of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to the country;

 


[Third Committee's Report to the Plenary/본회의에 제출하는 제3위원회 보고서]

 

 

A/69/488/Add.3

Item 68 (c):
Human rights situations and reports of special rapporteurs and representatives

 

United Nations

 

A/69/488/Add.3

General Assembly

 

Distr.: General

3 December 2014

 

Original: English

 

 

 

 

Sixty-ninth session

Agenda item 68 (c)

 

 

 

 

 


         *  The report of the Committee on this item is being issued in five parts, under the symbol A/69/488 and Add.1-4.

                 

 

 

Promotion and protection of human rights: human

rights situations and reports of special rapporteurs

and representatives

 

 

Report of the Third Committee*

 

 

Rapporteur: Mr. Ervin Nina (Albania)

 

II. Consideration of proposals

 

 

             A.    Draft resolutions A/C.3/69/L.28 and Rev.1 and amendment thereto contained in document A/C.3/69/L.63

 

 

8.       At the 42nd meeting, on 6 November, the representative of Italy, on behalf of Albania, Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Croatia, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Micronesia (Federated States of), Montenegro, the Netherlands, Norway, Panama, Poland, Portugal, the Republic of Korea, the Republic of Moldova, Romania, San Marino, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America, introduced a draft resolution entitled “Situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea” (A/C.3/69/L.28). Subsequently, Bosnia and Herzegovina joined in sponsoring the draft resolution.

9.       At its 46th meeting, on 18 November, the Committee had before it a revised draft resolution (A/C.3/69/L.28/Rev.1), submitted by the sponsors of draft resolution A/C.3/69/L.28, as well as Botswana, Kiribati, Monaco, Palau, Seychelles, Tuvalu, Ukraine, Uruguay and Vanuatu.

10.    At the same meeting, the representative of Italy made a statement and announced that Maldives, the Marshall Islands, New Zealand and Serbia had joined in sponsoring the draft resolution.

 

                           Action on the amendment contained in document A/C.3/69/L.63

 

11.     At the 46th meeting, on 18 November, the Chair drew the attention of the Committee to the amendment submitted to draft resolution A/C.3/69/L.28/Rev.1, as contained in document A/C.3/69/L.63.

12.    At the same meeting, the representative of Cuba made a statement and orally revised the amendment (see A/C.3/69/SR.46).

13.    The representatives of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, China, Japan, Belarus, the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, the Russian Federation and South Africa made statements in connection with the amendment, as orally revised.

14.    The representative of Italy also made a statement, in which he requested a recorded vote on the amendment, as orally revised.

15.    At the same meeting, the Committee rejected the amendment contained in document A/C.3/69/L.63, as orally revised, by a recorded vote of 77 to 40, with
50 abstentions. The voting was as follows:

In favour:

          Algeria, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Belarus, Bolivia (Plurinational State of), Burundi, China, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Haiti, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Niger, Pakistan, Russian Federation, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands, South Africa, South Sudan, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of), Viet Nam, Zimbabwe.

Against:

          Afghanistan, Albania, Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Benin, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cabo Verde, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kiribati, Latvia, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Maldives, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mexico, Micronesia (Federated States of), Monaco, Montenegro, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Palau, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Somalia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America.

Abstaining:

          Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Bhutan, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Central African Republic, Chad, Colombia, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominican Republic, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Jamaica, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lebanon, Lesotho, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Morocco, Mozambique, Nauru, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Oman, Papua New Guinea, Qatar, Rwanda, Seychelles, Singapore, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, United Republic of Tanzania, Yemen, Zambia.

16.    Before the vote, statements were made by the representatives of Italy, Japan, the Islamic Republic of Iran, the United States of America, Albania, Switzerland (on behalf also of Australia, Austria, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway) and Ecuador; after the vote, a statement was made by the representative of Uruguay (see A/C.3/69/SR.46).

 

                           Action on draft resolution A/C.3/69/L.28/Rev.1

 

17.    At the 47th meeting, on 18 November, the representative of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea made a statement and requested a recorded vote on the draft resolution.

18.    At the same meeting, the Committee adopted draft resolution A/C.3/69/L.28/Rev.1 by a recorded vote of 111 to 19, with 55 abstentions (see para. 36, draft resolution I). The voting was as follows:[1]

In favour:

          Afghanistan, Albania, Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bahrain, Barbados, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cabo Verde, Canada, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kiribati, Latvia, Lebanon, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Maldives, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Mexico, Micronesia (Federated States of), Monaco, Montenegro, Morocco, Nauru, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Palau, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Rwanda, Samoa, San Marino, Serbia, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Slovakia, Slovenia, Somalia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Tajikistan, Thailand, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Tunisia, Turkey, Tuvalu, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America, Uruguay, Vanuatu.

Against:

          Belarus, Bolivia (Plurinational State of), China, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Ecuador, Egypt, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Myanmar, Oman, Russian Federation, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, Uzbekistan, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of),
Viet Nam, Zimbabwe.

Abstaining:

          Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Bangladesh, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Cameroon, Comoros, Congo, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea, Guyana, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lesotho, Libya, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Singapore, Solomon Islands, South Africa, South Sudan, Suriname, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkmenistan, Uganda, United Republic of Tanzania, Yemen, Zambia.

19.    Before the vote, statements were made by the representatives of Japan, the Syrian Arab Republic, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Cuba, Belarus, the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela and Ecuador; after the vote, statements were made by the representatives of India, Pakistan, Indonesia, Myanmar, Thailand, Zimbabwe, Malaysia, Brazil, the Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Viet Nam, Singapore, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and Norway (see A/C.3/69/SR.47).



         [1]           Subsequently, the delegation of Grenada indicated that it had intended to vote in favour.

 

(...)

 

III. Recommendations of the Third Committee

 

 

36.    The Third Committee recommends to the General Assembly the adoption of the following draft resolutions:

 

 

                     Draft resolution I

                     Situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic

of Korea

(...)


Source:

http://www.un.org/press/en/2014/gashc4122.doc.htm

http://www.un.org/en/ga/third/69/votingsheets.shtml

http://www.un.org/en/ga/third/69/proposalstatus.shtml

보도자료: 141110 보도자료 ICC승인소위 등급심사 관련 국가인권위원회 성명.hwp

 

http://www.humanrights.go.kr/common/board/fildn_new.jsp?fn=1415622298338.hwp


 

 

ICC 승인소위 등급심사 연기 권고에 대한

 

국가인권위원회 성명 

 

 

가인권위원회(위원장 현병철)는 2014. 11. 08. 국가인권기구 국제조정위원회(International Coordinating Committee of National Institutions for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, 이하 ‘ICC’라 함) 승인소위원회로 부터 우리 위원회의 등급심사를 내년 상반기로 연기한다는 권고를 통보받았습니다.

 

지난 3월 ICC 승인소위원회는 인권위원 임명 절차의 투명성과 참여가 규정상 충분히 보장되어 있지 않고, 위원 선출에 대한 구체적 기준이 부재하며, 인권위원과 직원 구성에 있어 다양성 보장 규정이 미비하고, 인권위원과 직원의 업무에 있어 면책 조항이 부재한 점을 지적하였습니다.

 

우리 위원회는 이러한 승인소위의 권고 내용을 이행하기 위하여 위원회 내부의 실무운영팀을 운영, 전문가와 시민단체에 자문요청 및 간담회 개최하였으며, 국가인권위원회법 개정을 위한 특별위원회 설치, 공청회 개최 등을 통하여 ‘국가인권위원회법 개정안’ 및 ‘국가인권위원회 위원 선출‧지명의 원칙과 절차에 관한 가이드라인’을 마련하여 관련 기관에 권고하였습니다.

 

우리 위원회는 그 동안의 지속적 노력에도 불구하고 ICC 승인소위가 내린 이번 권고에 대해 깊은 유감을 표하며, ICC 승인소위의 우리나라 법과 제도 및 상황에 대한 이해가 얼마나 깊은가에 대한 의문점을 갖게 됩니다.

 

그러나, 우리 위원회는 이러한 아쉬움에도 불구하고 ICC 승인소위의 권고를 존중하고, 미흡하다고 제기된 부분에 대해서 최선을 다 해 이행할 것이며, 승인소위의 이해가 필요한 부분에 대해서는 적극적으로 설명할 예정입니다.  

 

내년 ICC 총회에서는 승인소위 심사 및 운영 등에 관해 제기된 문제점들에 대해 전반적인 검토가 이루어질 예정으로 우리 위원회는 이에 적극 참여할 것 입니다.

 

ICC 승인소위는 우리 위원회의 심사를 연기하면서 위원회가 마련한 가이드라인이 구속력이 없고, 법률개정안과 가이드라인에 위원 선출․지명시 명확하고 통일된 기준 확립 및 위원 지원․심사․선발 절차에서 광범위한 협의 및 참여 절차가 미흡할 수 있으며, 위원을 선출‧지명하는 각 3개 기관에 위원 선출지명과 관련된 내부 규정을 마련토록 권고한 것은 위원 임명 절차를 상이하게 할 수 있다고 보았습니다.

 

ICC 승인소위는 또, 위원 및 직원의 다양성 보장 조항과 면책조항을 신설하고, 시민사회와 협력 실적 제출 등을 요청하였으며, 내년으로 예정돼 있는 인권 위원 선출시, 투명하고 참여적인 절차가 확립될 수 있도록 노력해달라고 권고하였습니다.

 

그러나, 위원회가 권고한 가이드라인이 구속력이 없다는 의견은 위원 선출‧지명기관인 국회, 정부, 대법원이 가이드라인에 따라 승인소위의 권고를 내부 규정으로 명문화하고 이를 실질화한다면 해결될 수 있는 사안입니다.

 

다만, 인권위원 지명‧선출기관인 국회, 대법원, 대통령에게 동일한 절차를 요구하는 것은 삼권 분립의 취지상 이를 명문화하기 어려우며, 오히려 각각의 다른 선출절차가 다양성 보장에 도움이 될 수 있다는 점을 승인소위에 설명할 계획입니다. 또한, 면책 특권에 대한 법조항 신설에 대해서는 이에 대한 국민의 부정적 정서를 승인소위에 설명할 예정입니다.

 

우리 위원회는 아울러 기 제출된 국가인권위원회법 개정안과 가이드라인 권고가 위원 선출 ‧ 지명 시 활용될 수 있도록 국회, 정부, 대법원의 적극적인 협조를 당부드리며, 이에 대한 국민 여러분의 많은 관심을 부탁드립니다.

 

우리 위원회는 앞으로 ICC 승인소위 권고사항을 충실히 이행하여 국제사회에서 모범적인 인권기구로 거듭나기 위하여 꾸준히 노력할 것입니다.

 

 

2014. 11. 10.

 

국가인권위원회

 


출처: http://www.humanrights.go.kr/04_sub/body02.jsp?m_id1=72&m_id2=75&m_id3=919 HOME > 위원회활동 > 보도자료 > 보도자료

KBS 1TV

 

한국 한국인 (제30회)

 

국제사회 정의와 평화의 수호자 - 국제형사재판소 송상현 소장

 

1) 외부

 

http://vr.tudou.com/v2proxy/v2?it=194129606&st=52

 

 

2) KBS 1TV 한국 한국인 홈페이지

 

http://asx.kbs.co.kr/checkAsx_mp4.php?url=T2013-0607_S000_20140525_PS-2014079316-01-000_03_M4H20018.mp4&type=202

 

(KBS 홈페이지 회원 로그인 필요)


중대한 국제 인도법을 위반한 범죄를 저지른 개인을 처벌할 수 있는 최초의 상설 국제형사재판소 'ICC' 한국인 최초는 물론 아시아인 최초의 ICC 수장인 송상현 소장 !

 

열 살 때 발발한 6·25, ‘한국전쟁’으로 인해 말할 수 없는 고통을 경험한 그는 ‘법’ 을 공부해 평화로운 세상을 만들어야겠다는 결심을 하게 된다.

 

국제 사회 정의와 평화를 수호하고 있는 그는 재판 외에 피해자 구제에도 상당한 노력을 기울이고 있다.

 

아프리카의 오지로 현장 방문을 했다가 실제 위험에도 처한 적이 있었다고 하는데..

 

5월 25일 오전 7시 10분


KBS 1-TV <한국한국인>에서 만나본다.


출처:

http://www.kbs.co.kr/end_program/1tv/sisa/korean/view/vod/2253909_70486.html

 

[한국인권재단] 2013 국제인권연수

 

일시: 2013. 2. 4. (월) ~ 2. 13. (수)

장소: 프랑스 파리, 프랑스 스트라스부르, 스위스 제네바, 네덜란드 헤이그

주최: 한국인권재단

 

 2013 국제인권연수 보고서 (전문): http://www.humanrights.or.kr/2013hr_training.pdf.pdf

 

2013 국제인권연수 보고서 - 1부: 2013 국제인권 연수 보고서 pp 1-78.pdf

2013 국제인권연수 보고서 - 2부: 2013 국제인권 연수 보고서 pp 79-141.pdf

연수 보고서 - 3부: 2013 국제인권 연수 보고서 pp 142-181.pdf


2012 제2회 국제인권모의재판대회 수상자 인권연수 (2/3~2/13)

정은주 2013.03.08 14:07:15

2012 2012 국제인권모의재판대회 수상자 인권연수 (2/3~2/13)

"젊은 인권, 세계를 경험하고 돌아왔습니다"



2012년도 제2회 국제인권모의재판대회 수상자들이 지난 2월 4일부터 2월 13일까지 국제인권연수에 다녀왔습니다. 참가자들은 재단의 이성훈 상임이사와 이혜정 팀장의 인솔 아래 전체 9박 10일의 일정 동안 유럽 4개 도시(파리, 스트라스부르, 제네바, 헤이그)와 경제협력개발기구(Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, OECD), 국제인권연맹(International Federation for Human Rights, FIDH), 유럽인권재판소 등 각 도시에 소재한 인권관련 주요 국제기구 및 NGO를 방문했습니다. 특히 유엔인권최고대표사무소(Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights,OHCHR) 강경화 부대표 및 유고슬라비아 국제형사재판소(International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, ICTY) 권오곤 재판관과의 담화를 통해 국제적 수준에서의 인권의 역할과 기능을 배우는 시간을 갖기도 했습니다.

 


참가자들은 귀국 후 열린 연수 보고회(2/28, cafe the way)를 통해 방문기관에 관해 정리⋅발표하고 함께 소감을 나누었으며, 이번 연수 결과는 국제인권연수 보고서로 제작하여 재단 홈페이지 아카이브에 실릴 예정입니다.

 

이번 연수가 참가 학생들 모두에게 인권에 대한 관심과 이해를 높이는 계기가 되었길 기대하며, 아울러 국제인권 

이슈와 제도에 관심이 있는 많은 분들에게 이번 연수보고서가 큰 도움이 될 수 있기를 바랍니다.




 

2012 제2회 국제인권모의재판대회

International Human Rights Moot Court

 

2013 국제인권 연수 보고서

 

2013.2.4.-13.

 

Paris / Strasbourg / Geneva / The Hague

 

목차

 

Ⅰ. 한국인권재단 이사장 인사말 ---------------------------------------- 3p
Ⅱ. 한국인권재단 상임이사 인사말 ------------------------------------- 4p
Ⅲ. 연수 개요 International Human Rights Training Programme ------------ 8p
Ⅳ. 2012 국제인권 모의재판 대회 개요
    1. 대회개요 ------------------------------------------------------- 10p
    2. 수상자 --------------------------------------------------------- 11p
    3. 대회 문제 ------------------------------------------------------ 12p

Ⅴ. 국제 인권 연수
[기관 보고서]
1. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development -------- 18p
   OECD
2. International Federation for Human Rights ----------------------- 25p
    FIDH
3. European Court of Human Rights ------------------------------- 32p
4. Council of Europe -------------------------------------------- 38p
   CoE
5. Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights - 44p
   OHCHR
6. International Labour Organization ------------------------------- 56p
    ILO
8. United Nations Human Rights Council --------------------------- 58p
    UNHRC
9. 주 제네바 대한민국 대표부 -------------------------------------- 63p
    Permanent Mission of the Republic of Korea
10. International Criminal Court ------------------------------------ 73p
     ICC

11.International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia ------------- 79p
    ICTY


[특별 프로그램]
제네바 인권 대화(G-talk) --------------------------------------------- 92p

 

[개인 보고서]


▪ 대학생 부문
LAWSPES팀       김나라 --------------------------------------------- 102p
                        정한울 --------------------------------------------- 107p
자유의 날개팀    김광현 --------------------------------------------- 114p
                        김현진 --------------------------------------------- 120p

     임일형 --------------------------------------------- 125p

타인의 취향팀    임예지 ---------------------------------------------- 131p

 

▪ 대학원생 부문
Takeout팀        김반석 ---------------------------------------------- 144p
                      김유진----------------------------------------------- 148p
                      김혜성----------------------------------------------- 153p
인권의 발명팀 김헌구----------------------------------------------- 157p
                      이연지----------------------------------------------- 161p
                      임재성----------------------------------------------- 169p

사랑빛팀         심현진----------------------------------------------- 174p
                      채수지----------------------------------------------- 177p

▪ 용어 목록 ---------------------------------------------------------- 179p