[Opinion] Let`s Verify the Human Rights Committee in Public

When we think about he word `human rights`, it makes one`s heart to palpitate because it is a fundamental value that can make me as a real human being along with other people. Sometimes, however, the word `human rights` sounds tiresome. What on earth has it been realized? Nevertheless, the human rights are something we cannot give up. The national human rights committee is an organization that can resolve the dilemma somewhat in reality. After ups and downs, the law regarding the human rights committee was passed, and it will be enforced within a month. Regardless of many problems, we the citizens, as subjects of human rights, cannot but count on the committee.

The human rights committee is a national organization, but its function should be supervision of the nation because serious violation of human rights, which cannot be healed, is caused by the national power, rather than by individuals or organizations. The national human rights committee should have characteristics of civil organization, while it is a national organization. The decision of content should be realized through the social views, and the enforcement should be made through the national power. Therefore, outcome and will of the human rights movement organizations should be reflected in the establishment procedure and the content of the national human rights committee.

If the committee are to be operated based on the purpose of the organization despite several hindering factors, it should follow the principle at least in terms of forming the committee members. At last, activities of the committee cannot but be decided through committee members` decision. President appointed four members following the National Assembly`s appointment of four out of 11 people. As three more people need to be appointed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, some people assess that the worst case has been avoided, whereas others raise suspicion with regard to some members of the committee.

The principle of forming the members of the national human rights committee is to appoint people who have expertise, independence and fairness through a transparent procedure, while considering diversity and plurality. This process depends on how the qualification of the members and the procedure of selection are decided. Hence, it is appropriate to select those who `have knowledge and experience in the issue of human rights, and can carry out the task fairly and independently to guarantee and improve human rights`, while abandoning the proposal of the Ministry of Justice, which recommends those who `have high social reputation and have insights on human rights`.

However, if we look at the appointment process, the law goes against the principle from the beginning. The appointment process in which President, the National Assembly, and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court appoint three or four people looks as if it is democratic. However, such a process cannot satisfy the demand for plurality and diversity. The plurality of the human rights committee can be a device that guarantees the independence of the organization, and the diversity is the foundation of plurality. That `the human rights committee should be able to represent every social groups of the civil society` is also the UN`s principle on the position of the national human rights organization. Moreover, to grant the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, who does not have representative character of people, the right to appoint the committee member is our unique practice. It is unprecedented even from comparative legal perspective. Furthermore, any verification procedure is not prepared for such an appointment process. Nobody can say anything even if they appoint people based on one`s own political advantages in one`s own secrete place.

How come are our political parties so committed to make their own partisan profits? If they at least recognize the human rights as a common value of the nation that seeks to become a desirable human society, can they just show an exceptional attitude once? Who would have complained, if they collected opinions from the various sectors of the society, including the human rights organization, and voluntarily held public hearings on appointment? There is no explanation about the members whom they recommended and selected. People, who are fed up with politics and are angry with the politicians, are disappointed all the way through. Can we expect that the Chief of Justice of the Supreme Court would be decisive on his appointment, which will take place soon? If so, nobody would complain even if the appointment of the last three members of the committee is delayed.

People, who have the right to select and appoint the members of the national human rights committee, should feel responsibility. They should exercise their rights through self-realization until the appointment procedure is revised based on the principle. They should not take members as subject of political compromise. As the human rights of the whole people are violated when the human rights of one individual is violated, it should not shake the human rights policy by wrongly appointing one committee member. The national human rights organization is not an `alibi organization` to hide the cases of violation of human rights by the nation.

Cha Byung-Jik (Professor at Ewha Women`s University, General Secretary of Cooperation at the People`s Solidarity for Participatory Democracy)