-“정부, 유엔 <한국보고서> 백남기·한상균 언급에도 “모든 노력 다했다”대답...‘소 귀에 경 읽기’격”
-“반기문 총장, 이미 터키, 미국, 감비아에 집회의 자유 보장 촉구... 조국 인권상황에도 목소리 내야”
노회찬 정의당 원내대표는 오늘(12일) 보도자료를 통해, “반기문 사무총장에게 유엔 인권이사회에서 발표된 <대한민국 정부에 대한 평화적 집회 및 결사의 자유 특별보고관 보고서(이하 ‘한국보고서’)>의 권고 이행을 한국 정부에 촉구하라는 내용의 서한을 발송했다”고 밝혔다.
지난 6월 17일 유엔 인권이사회에서 마이나 키아이 유엔 특별보고관이 발표한 ‘한국보고서’는 한국 경찰이 집회 금지시 적용하는 규정 및 차벽·물대포 사용, 집회 참가자에 대한 민형사상 탄압, 교사와 공무원 등의 노조 설립 어려움, 삼성 등 기업의 노조 무력화가 유엔「정치적·시민적 권리규약」(ICCPR) 등 국제인권규범에 어긋난다는 내용을 담고 있다.
노회찬 원내대표는 특히 “‘한국보고서’는 민주노총 한상균 위원장의 예를 들어, 집회 참가자에 대한 형사기소가 집회의 자유를 사실상 범죄화(criminalise)한다고 지적했다. 또, 백남기 농민에 대해 “정당화하기 어려운 물대포 사용”이 야기한 “비극적 사례” 라고 밝혔다.”고 강조했다.
노회찬 원내대표는 반기문 총장에게 공개서한을 보낸 이유에 대해, “유엔 사무총장은 국제인권규범의 확산과 이행에 대한 책임을 진다”며, “<한국보고서>를 통해 유엔 인권이사회에서 한국의 열악한 집회·결사의 자유 실태가 조목조목 드러났지만, 한국 정부는 ‘국제인권법을 준수하기 위해 모든 노력을 다했다’고만 답했다. ‘소 귀에 경 읽기’ 격”이라고 지적하면서,
“반기문 유엔 사무총장은 2013년 3월에는 터키 정부, 2014년 8월에는 미국 정부, 올해 4월에는 감비아 정부에 각각 집회의 자유를 존중하라고 촉구했다. 조국의 인권상황에도 목소리를 내야 한다”고 밝혔다.
나아가, 노회찬 원내대표는 “지난 7월 4일에 서울중앙지방법원이 한상균 위원장에게 징역 5년의 실형을 선고했다. 대한민국은 올해 유엔 인권이사회 의장국인데, 의장국의 인권 현실이 유엔 인권기구의 권고와 정반대로 나아간 것”이라고 지적하기도 했다.
끝으로, 노회찬 원내대표는 “<한국보고서>를 읽으며 대한민국 국회의원으로서 부끄러워 고개를 들 수 없었다.”며, “반기문 유엔 사무총장이 직무를 마치고 조국으로 돌아왔을 때, 제1의 업적이 한국의 인권상황을 개선한 일이 되기를 바란다”고 밝혔다. <끝>
※ 별첨1: 공개서한 전문 (국문본)
※ 별첨2: 공개서한 전문 (영문본)
※ 별첨3: <한국보고서> 원문 중 관련 부분 발췌
※ 별첨1: 공개서한 전문 (국문본)
※ 별첨2: 공개서한 전문 (영문본)
※ 별첨2: 공개서한 전문 (영문본)
※ 별첨3: <한국보고서> 원문 중 관련 부분 발췌
<유엔 인권보고관 ‘한국보고서’ 원문>
1. 물대포의 위험성을 지적하고, 백남기 씨를 언급한 부분 (33문단)
33. Nonetheless, there remain serious problems with the use of water cannons, some of which the police acknowledged.
First, the tactic is indiscriminate. It is difficult to use water cannons to isolate violent individuals in a mixed crowd. In footage made available to the Special Rapporteur, the water cannon was used against largely peaceful crowds. In certain cases, lone individuals were targeted, a use difficult to justify. Victims also testified to the personal injuries and property damages sustained due to the use of water cannons.
The case of Mr. Baek Nam-gi is a tragic illustration of this. Mr Baek, a participant during the November 2015 ‘peoples rally’, was knocked to the ground by a water cannon, resulting in serious injuries. He remains in a coma at the time of writing of this report. The police explained that the water cannon operator relies on a monitor with a relatively small screen inside the vehicle limiting the detail that the operator can see. This increases the chances that the water cannon will cause severe injury to protestors. Several interlocutors also testified that warnings about the impending use of the water cannon are difficult to hear because of the noise accompanying protests and demonstrations.
2. 차벽 설치 및 집회금지규정이 ICCPR 위반임을 적시한 부분 (37, 28문단)
37. The Special Rapporteur is unconvinced that these uses of bus barricades meet the necessity and proportionality requirements under article 21 of the ICCPR. Bus barricades are antithetical to authorities’ obligation to facilitate assemblies. They are not used reactively to manage the conduct of participants, but rather pre-emptively to interfere with the right to freedom of peaceful assembly. This illustrates a prior intention to restrict the free flow of assemblies.
28. The reasons that police rely on to ban or find assemblies unlawful, such as obstruction of traffic, disturbance of daily lives of citizens, high noise levels, and later notification of a simultaneous assembly, do not meet the criteria set out in article 21 of the ICCPR to justify limitations on assemblies. Only restrictions which are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, public order, the protection of public health or morals, or the protection of the rights and freedom of others, and are lawful, necessary and proportionate to the aim pursued, may be applied (A/HRC/31/66 para 29). The wide discretion and powers to restrict assemblies have allegedly led to situations whereby for example, press conferences held by college students around the issue of comfort women, and also one organised by Mr. Kim Jung-soo protesting fraud, were deemed ‘unlawful assemblies’ because participants shouted slogans.
3. 물대포 사용의 재검토를 요구한 부분 (평화적 집회의 자유에 대한 권고)
Recommendations on the right to freedom of peaceful assembly
(b) Review tactics used for the management of assemblies – including the use of water cannons and bus barricades - to ensure that they are not applied indiscriminately or against peaceful protestors, they do not result in escalation of tensions, and are directed at facilitating rather than preventing the exercise of assembly rights.
4. 집회참가자에 대한 형사기소의 문제점을 지적한 부분 (42문단)
42. Charging assembly participants with certain criminal offenses, such as the general obstruction of traffic, de facto criminalises the right to peaceful assembly. Where large numbers of participants turn out, it is virtually impossible to keep roads entirely clear. Yet if individuals spill over onto the roads they may be charged with obstructing traffic. The choice to prosecute at all, and more so to charge participants with the serious offence of general obstruction of traffic, conveys a desire by authorities to discourage assemblies on roads. The Special Rapporteur reiterates that assemblies are an equally legitimate use of public space as commercial activity or the movement of vehicles and pedestrian traffic (A/HRC/20/27, para. 41).
33. Nonetheless, there remain serious problems with the use of water cannons, some of which the police acknowledged.
First, the tactic is indiscriminate. It is difficult to use water cannons to isolate violent individuals in a mixed crowd. In footage made available to the Special Rapporteur, the water cannon was used against largely peaceful crowds. In certain cases, lone individuals were targeted, a use difficult to justify. Victims also testified to the personal injuries and property damages sustained due to the use of water cannons.
The case of Mr. Baek Nam-gi is a tragic illustration of this. Mr Baek, a participant during the November 2015 ‘peoples rally’, was knocked to the ground by a water cannon, resulting in serious injuries. He remains in a coma at the time of writing of this report. The police explained that the water cannon operator relies on a monitor with a relatively small screen inside the vehicle limiting the detail that the operator can see. This increases the chances that the water cannon will cause severe injury to protestors. Several interlocutors also testified that warnings about the impending use of the water cannon are difficult to hear because of the noise accompanying protests and demonstrations.
2. 차벽 설치 및 집회금지규정이 ICCPR 위반임을 적시한 부분 (37, 28문단)
37. The Special Rapporteur is unconvinced that these uses of bus barricades meet the necessity and proportionality requirements under article 21 of the ICCPR. Bus barricades are antithetical to authorities’ obligation to facilitate assemblies. They are not used reactively to manage the conduct of participants, but rather pre-emptively to interfere with the right to freedom of peaceful assembly. This illustrates a prior intention to restrict the free flow of assemblies.
28. The reasons that police rely on to ban or find assemblies unlawful, such as obstruction of traffic, disturbance of daily lives of citizens, high noise levels, and later notification of a simultaneous assembly, do not meet the criteria set out in article 21 of the ICCPR to justify limitations on assemblies. Only restrictions which are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, public order, the protection of public health or morals, or the protection of the rights and freedom of others, and are lawful, necessary and proportionate to the aim pursued, may be applied (A/HRC/31/66 para 29). The wide discretion and powers to restrict assemblies have allegedly led to situations whereby for example, press conferences held by college students around the issue of comfort women, and also one organised by Mr. Kim Jung-soo protesting fraud, were deemed ‘unlawful assemblies’ because participants shouted slogans.
3. 물대포 사용의 재검토를 요구한 부분 (평화적 집회의 자유에 대한 권고)
Recommendations on the right to freedom of peaceful assembly
(b) Review tactics used for the management of assemblies – including the use of water cannons and bus barricades - to ensure that they are not applied indiscriminately or against peaceful protestors, they do not result in escalation of tensions, and are directed at facilitating rather than preventing the exercise of assembly rights.
4. 집회참가자에 대한 형사기소의 문제점을 지적한 부분 (42문단)
42. Charging assembly participants with certain criminal offenses, such as the general obstruction of traffic, de facto criminalises the right to peaceful assembly. Where large numbers of participants turn out, it is virtually impossible to keep roads entirely clear. Yet if individuals spill over onto the roads they may be charged with obstructing traffic. The choice to prosecute at all, and more so to charge participants with the serious offence of general obstruction of traffic, conveys a desire by authorities to discourage assemblies on roads. The Special Rapporteur reiterates that assemblies are an equally legitimate use of public space as commercial activity or the movement of vehicles and pedestrian traffic (A/HRC/20/27, para. 41).
