A/HRC/25/CRP.1
A/HRC/25/CRP.1Distr.: Restricted
7 February 2014
English only
Human Rights Council
Twenty-fifth session
Agenda item 4
Human rights situations that require the Council’s attention
Report of the detailed findings of the commission of inquiry on human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea[*]
SummaryThe present document contains the detailed findings of the commission of inquiry on human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. The Commission’s principal findings and recommendations are provided in document A/HRC/25/63.
[English only]
Contents
Paragraphs Page
I. Introduction 1–5 5
II. Mandate and methodology of the commission of inquiry 6-84 5
A. Origins of the mandate 6-12 5
B. Interpretation of the mandate 13-20 6
C. Non-cooperation by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea 21-27 8
D. Methods of work 28-62 10
E. Legal framework and standard of proof for reported violations 63-78 15
F. Archiving and record-keeping of testimony 79-84 18
III. Historical and political context to human rights violations in
the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea 85-162 19
A. Pre-colonial history 87-89 19
B. Japanese colonial occupation (1910 to 1945) 90-94 20
C. Division of the peninsula, the Korean War and its legacy 95-109 21
D. Imposition of the Supreme Leader (suryong) system 110-128 27
E. Consolidation of power under the Kim dynasty 129-157 34
F. External dynamics and the human rights situation 158-162 43
IV. Findings of the commission 163-1021 45
A. Violations of the freedoms of thought, expression and religion 163-264 45
B. Discrimination on the basis of State-assigned social class (songbun),
gender and disability 265-354 74
C. Violations of the freedom of movement and residence, including the
freedom to leave one’s own country and the prohibition of refoulement 355-492 99
D. Violations of the right to food and related aspects of the right to life 493-692 144
E. Arbitrary detention, torture, executions, enforced disappearance
and political prison camps 693-845 208
F. Enforced disappearance of persons from other countries,
including through abduction 846-1021 270
V. Crimes against humanity 1022-1165 319
A. Definition of crimes against humanity under international law 1026-1032 320
B. Crimes against humanity in political prison camps 1033-1067 323
C. Crimes against humanity in the ordinary prison system 1068-1086 330
D. Crimes against humanity targeting religious believers and others considered
to introduce subversive influences 1087-1097 333
E. Crimes against humanity targeting persons who try to flee the country 1098-1114 335
F. Starvation 1115-1137 339
G. Crimes against humanity targeting persons from other countries,
in particular through international abductions 1138-1154 345
H. A case of political genocide? 1155-1159 350
I. Principal findings of the commission 1160-1165 351
VI. Ensuring accountability, in particular for crimes against humanity 1166-1210 352
A. Institutional accountability 1167-1194 352
B. Individual criminal accountability 1195-1203 359
C. Responsibility of the international community 1204-1210 363
VII. Conclusions and recommendations 1211-1224 365
Acronyms
ACF Action contre la Faim (Action against Hunger)
CEDAW Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women
CESCR Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
CRC Convention on the Rights of the Child
DPRK Democratic People’s Republic of Korea
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
HRNK Committee for Human Rights in North Korea
HRW Human Rights Watch
ICCPR International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
ICNK International Coalition to Stop Crimes against Humanity in North Korea
ICESCR International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights
ICRC International Committee of the Red Cross
KBA Korean Bar Association
KCNA Korean Central News Agency of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea
KINU Korea Institute for National Unification
KPA Korean People’s Army
KWAFU Korean War Abductees’ Family Union
KWARI Korean War Abductees’ Research Institute
LFNKR Life Funds for North Korean Refugees
MPS Ministry of People’s Security
MSF Médecins Sans Frontières (Doctors Without Borders)
NGO Non-governmental organization
NHRCK National Human Rights Commission of Korea
NKDB Database Center for North Korean Human Rights
NKHR Citizens’ Alliance for North Korea Human Rights
PDS Public Distribution System
POW Prisoner of War
ROK Republic of Korea
SSD State Security Department
UNHCR Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
USA United States of America
WFP World Food Programme
WHO World Health Organization
WGEID Working Group on Enforced and Involuntary Disappearances
I. Introduction
1. On 21 March 2013, at its 22nd session, the United Nations Human Rights Council established the Commission of Inquiry on Human Rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK). Human Rights Council Resolution 22/13 mandated the body to investigate the systematic, widespread and grave violations of human rights in the DPRK, with a view to ensuring full accountability, in particular, for violations that may amount to crimes against humanity.[1]
2. Among the violations to be investigated were those pertaining to the right to food, those associated with prison camps, torture and inhuman treatment, arbitrary detention, discrimination, freedom of expression, the right to life, freedom of movement, and enforced disappearances, including in the form of abductions of nationals of other states.
3. On 7 May 2013, the President of the Human Rights Council announced the appointment of Michael Kirby of Australia and Sonja Biserko of Serbia, who joined Marzuki Darusman of Indonesia, the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, to serve as the members of the Commission of Inquiry on Human Rights in the DPRK. Mr Kirby was designated to serve as Chair. The Commissioners, who served in a non-remunerated, independent, expert capacity, took up their work the following month. The Commission of Inquiry was supported by a Secretariat of nine experienced human rights officials provided by the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Once appointed, however, the Secretariat worked independently of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.
4. This report builds upon the oral updates which the Commission of Inquiry provided in accordance with Resolution 22/13 to the Human Rights Council in September 2013 and to the United Nations General Assembly in October 2013.
5. The Commission implemented the mandate entrusted by the Member States of the Human Rights Council bearing in mind the Council’s decision to transmit the reports of the Commission to all relevant bodies of the United Nations and to the United Nations Secretary-General for appropriate action.
II. Mandate and methodology of the commission of inquiry
A. Origins of the mandate
6. The adoption of Resolution 22/13 marked the first time that the Human Rights Council had established a commission of inquiry without a vote. It follows resolutions adopted in 2012 without a vote by the General Assembly and the Human Rights Council that expressed deep concern about the persisting deterioration in the human rights situation in the DPRK.[2]
7. Leading up to the adoption of Resolution 22/13, United Nations human rights entities, including the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, a number of Member States, and several civil society organizations, including human rights groups set up by persons who had fled the DPRK, had called for the establishment of an inquiry mechanism. The report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the DPRK to the 22nd session of the Human Rights Council, in particular, identified the need for an international independent and impartial inquiry mechanism with adequate resources to investigate and more fully document the grave, systematic and widespread violations of human rights in the DPRK.
8. In January 2013, the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay, called for a fully-fledged international inquiry into serious crimes that, she said, had been taking place in the DPRK for decades, and stressed that the concern about the DPRK’s possession of nuclear weapons should not overshadow the deplorable human rights situation in North Korea.
9. The establishment of the Commission of Inquiry must also be seen in light of the DPRK’s limited cooperation with the existing human rights mechanisms. The DPRK is a State Party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the International Covenant on Economic and Social Rights (ICESCR), the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW). Since 2009, the DPRK has not submitted any state reports on the foregoing treaties, although in 2004, the DPRK did take the positive step of inviting a delegation of the Committee on the Rights of the Child to visit the country.
10. The DPRK underwent its first cycle of the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) in 2009 and will be subject to the second cycle in 2014. While stating some generic commitments to human rights obligations, the DPRK failed to accept any of the 167 recommendations made by the UPR Working Group in 2009.[3]
11. The Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea has not had access to the country since the inception of the mandate in 2004. The DPRK has rejected the mandate, deeming it as a hostile act, and refuses to cooperate with it. Since the mission of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences in 1995,[4] not a single mandate holder of the Human Rights Council has been invited, or permitted, to visit the DPRK.
12. On the basis of resolutions by the General Assembly and the Human Rights Council, the Secretary-General and the High Commissioner for Human Rights have also issued periodic reports detailing human rights violations and related impunity in the DPRK. The DPRK has not provided substantive input to these reports since it has rejected the underlying resolutions of the General Assembly and Human Rights Council. Since 2003, the DPRK Government has also rejected all offers of technical assistance from the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR).
B. Interpretation of the mandate
13. The mandate of the Commission of Inquiry is essentially found in paragraph 5 of Resolution 22/13 that makes specific reference to paragraph 31 of the 2013 report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.[5] Reading the two paragraphs together, the Commission determined that it had been mandated to investigate the systematic, widespread and grave violations of human rights in the DPRK including, in particular, the following nine specific substantive areas:
- violations of the right to food,
- the full range of violations associated with prison camps,
- torture and inhuman treatment,
- arbitrary arrest and detention,
- discrimination, in particular in the systemic denial and violation of basic human rights and fundamental freedoms,
- violations of the freedom of expression,
- violations of the right to life,
- violations of the freedom of individual movement, and
- enforced disappearances, including in the form of abductions of nationals of other states.
14. These nine areas, which are interlinking and overlap, therefore define the focus of the Commission’s inquiry. However, this list of nine is not exhaustive, and, where appropriate, the Commission has also investigated violations that are intrinsically linked to one of the nine areas.
15. The mandate further indicates that the inquiry should pursue three inter-linked objectives: (1) further investigating and documenting human rights violations, (2) collecting and documenting victim and perpetrator accounts, and (3) ensuring accountability.
(a) Further investigation and documentation of human rights violations: Resolution 22/13 asks the Commission to investigate the systematic, widespread and grave violations of human rights in the DPRK. Likewise, paragraph 31 of the Special Rapporteur’s report mentioned above repeatedly refers to more detailed documentation of such violations. The request for more detailed investigation, with a view to ensuring accountability, suggested a stronger focus on investigating how, and by whom, any violations have been found to be planned, ordered and organized.
(b) Documentation of the accounts of victims and perpetrators: The mandate, as elaborated by paragraph 31 of the Special Rapporteur’s report, asks the Commission for “the collection and documentation of victims’ testimonies and the accounts of survivors, witnesses and perpetrators”. The Commission implemented this aspect of the mandate primarily by conducting public hearings of victims and other witnesses and making their testimonies available on its webpage. Additionally, accounts provided by victims and witnesses who could not speak publicly for protection reasons are safeguarded in a secure and confidential database.
(c) Ensuring full institutional and personal accountability: The mandate makes it clear that the investigation should be carried out “with a view to ensuring full accountability, in particular where these violations may amount to crimes against humanity”. Paragraph 31 of the Special Rapporteur’s report adds that the “inquiry should examine the issues of institutional and personal accountability for [grave, systematic and widespread violations], in particular where they amount to crimes against humanity”.
16. Considering the extent, systematic nature and gravity of the reported violations, the Commission also considered the responsibility of the international community. It has directed recommendations towards the international community as requested by paragraph5 of Resolution 22/13, read in conjunction with Paragraph 31 of the Special Rapporteur’s report.
17. In accordance with paragraph 17 of Human Rights Council Resolution 23/25[6] and in line with best practices on the integration of gender in the exercise of mandates, the Commission has devoted specific attention to gendered issues and impacts of violations during the course of its investigations, paying particular attention to violence against women and children. Taking into account Human Rights Council Resolution 23/25, the Commission therefore paid specific attention to violence against women and girls and included the gender dimension of other violations in its report. Violence against women, in particular sexual violence, proved to be difficult to document owing to the stigma and shame that still attaches to the victims. The Commission takes the view that its inquiry may have only partially captured the extent of relevant violations.
18. Compared to the mandates given to other commissions of inquiry,[7] paragraph 5 of Resolution 22/13 does not limit the temporal scope for the Commission’s inquiry. The Commission has focused on documenting violations that are reflective of the human rights situation as it persists at present. Within the limits of time, resources and available information at its disposal, the Commission has also inquired into patterns of human rights violations that may have commenced in the more distant past, but are continuing and/or have serious repercussions to this day. Historical events that predate the establishment of the DPRK are described where they are crucial to understanding the human rights violations in the DPRK and their underlying political, cultural and economic causes.