HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL HOLDS PANEL DISCUSSION ON THE HUMAN RIGHTS SITUATION IN THE DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF KOREA

The Human Rights Council during its midday meeting held a panel discussion on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, with a focus on the issues of international abductions, enforced disappearances and detentions for political reasons. The High Commissioner for Human Rights provided an oral update on the role and achievements of his Office, including on the field-based structure in Seoul.

Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, said that the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights field-based structure in Seoul was now operational and that its core objectives were to improve the human rights situation in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and to advance accountability. The issue of abductions and enforced disappearances would remain a crucial focus of its work. Recent intra-Korean talks, and the agreement reached in late August, had raised hopes of progress on some issues, in particular family reunion, and progress on the reunion of separated families would be a key indicator of political will. The findings by the Commission of Inquiry that crimes against humanity had been and continued to be committed clearly invoked the international community’s responsibility to take action, which could include possible referral to the International Criminal Court. The field-based structure in Seoul would continue to gather information on the human rights situation in the country, to update and deepen the information gathered by the Commission of Inquiry and the Special Rapporteur.

Michael Kirby, former Chair of the Commission of Inquiry on human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and panel moderator, explained that the panel had decided to address the issues of abductions, disappearances and detentions for political reasons due to the very large number of abducted or disappeared people mentioned in the report. The Commission presented a twofold strategy, of ensuring accountability and reaching out to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, so that it changed the way it was dealing with its own people, especially abductees and detainees.

Marzuki Darusman, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and panellist, said that the main findings by the Commission of Inquiry had led it to conclude that crimes against humanity had taken place and were continuing to take place in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. They included murder, enslavement, forced abortion and enforced disappearances. The report was released in February 2014 and it had galvanized the international community to end the violations committed in the country, which was now a permanent item on the Council’s agenda.

David Hawk, author of the book The Hidden Gulag: Putting Human Rights on the “North Korea” Policy Agenda and panellist, explained that abducted nationals were deported by the police to penal labour colonies located in the mountains regions of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. The Government should be asked to explain how many they were, account for their fate and whereabouts, and to provide locations and information on the conditions in detention facilities.

Kochiro Iizuka, Vice Secretary-General, Association of Families of Victims Kidnapped by “North Korea” and panellist, warned that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea misused information about abductees. There had been at least several hundred Japanese citizens whose abduction by the Democratic People's Republic of Korea could not be doubted. Given the fact that abductees were of many nationalities, abductions constituted an important international issue and States should unite to resolve it.

Kwon Eun-Kyoung, International Coalition to Stop Crimes against Humanity in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and panellist, drew attention to the recent executions and enforced disappearances of citizens in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea only because they possessed a phone, or had access to forbidden foreign news in the country. Hundreds of public executions had been carried out in recent years on similar allegations. This policy sought to spread fear in the society.

The Democratic People's Republic of Korea, speaking as the concerned country, rejected the panel discussion, which followed ill-minded political objectives and represented a product of conspiracy of the hostile forces led by the United States pursuing a plot against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. The report of the Commission had been based on false information provided by so-called “North Korean” defectors. The sponsors of the panel were not qualified to refer to the situation of other countries. A bad precedent was being created at the Human Rights Council, leading to an abnormal situation and would result in greater damage to the credibility of the Council. All countries that had been struggling against politicization and double standards should reject the confrontational panel discussion.

In the ensuing interactive dialogue, speakers were disturbed by the catalogue and gravity of human rights violations involved, ranging from rape, forced abortion and infanticide in political prison camps, to violation of freedom of religion and belief. They called for an immediate solution to the human rights situation in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, adding that the United Nations Security Council should refer the situation to the International Criminal Court. It was also noted that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea did not act alone. In the past two decades, many abductions and forced repatriations took place in and from China. China was complicit in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s crimes against returnees and its efforts to ensure silence and impunity for those crimes.

Some speakers, however, opposed any action that might lead to a regime change in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, stressing that mechanisms such as the Universal Periodic Review fostered dialogue as the best possible way to address the issue. They condemned the use of human rights as a pretext for interference in domestic affairs of countries. Such interference served the political agenda of some countries, which would in fact do better to assess their own human rights record. They warned that the Council adopted policies that were far from protecting human rights, instead of acting in a spirit of cooperation and mutual respect.

Speaking in the panel discussion were Japan, European Union, Ireland, Albania, Cuba, Germany, United States, Latvia, China, Norway, France, Czech Republic, Liechtenstein, New Zealand, Poland, Netherlands, Costa Rica, Australia, Austria, Republic of Korea, Lithuania, Syria, Russian Federation, Estonia, Slovenia, Venezuela, United Kingdom, Iran, Portugal, Spain, Canada, Belarus, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Slovakia, Belgium, and Myanmar.
The following civil society organizations also took the floor: United Nations Watch, Human Rights Watch, Conscience and Peace Tax International, and World Evangelical Alliance.

The Council will reconvene at 3 p.m. to start a general debate on human rights situations requiring the attention of the Council.

Statements by the Moderator and the Panellists

MICHAEL KIRBY, former Chair of the Commission of Inquiry on human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and panel moderator, said that the report of the Commission had been placed on the table of the Security Council, where it remained until today. Meanwhile, the Human Rights Council had established today’s panel in order to address the issues of abductions, disappearances and detentions for political reasons. The reason those three topics had been selected was that the very large number of abducted or disappeared people were the most numerous mentioned in the report. There was an urgency on the issue before the Council, as many of the relatives of those missing were growing old and some of them had died. Many family members did not know whether their loved ones had survived or where they currently were. The Commission of Inquiry presented a twofold strategy, of ensuring accountability and reaching out to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea so that it changed the way it was dealing with its own people, especially abductees and detainees.

MARZUKI DARUSMAN, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, stated that, until a few years earlier, nobody would have expected that today’s panel would be taking place. The issue had been on the agenda of the Council for a number of years. The main findings by the Commission of Inquiry had led the Commission to conclude that crimes against humanity had taken place and were continuing to take place in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. They included murder, enslavement, forced abortion and enforced disappearances. The report had been released in February 2014, galvanizing the international community to end the violations committed in the country. The Security Council had added the human rights situation in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea as a permanent item to its agenda. Relations between the two Koreas had taken a new turn in recent times. Both parties were urged to increase the number of families who were allowed to reunite; there were still some 66,000 families who were to be reunited. Following the Commission’s report, the accountability process had to be put in place, as justice delayed was justice denied. It was high time that the international community reacted with a resolute dispatch.

MICHAEL KIRBY, former Chair of the Commission of Inquiry on the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and panel moderator, said that at this rate, it would take 660 years to reunite all the families, and that this process, and the manner in which it was conducted - which was now like a lottery - must be improved.

DAVID HAWK, author of the book The Hidden Gulag: Putting Human Rights on the “North Korea” Policy Agenda, said that the normative prohibition on enforced disappearances applied also to the deprivation of liberty for reasons not permitted under international law of thousands of “Northern Koreans” who had been forcefully taken from their homes. Those abducted “North Korean” nationals were deported by the police to penal labour colonies located in the mountains regions of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Those disappearances amounted to numerous and prolonged crimes against humanity. The places where forcibly disappeared “North Koreans” were transported to were called “Kwan-li-so” or political prisons. The initial starting point for the disappearance of “North Korean” nationals was counting and “DPRK” should be asked to explain how many they were, account for their fate and whereabouts, and to provide locations and information on the conditions in detention facilities.

MICHAEL KIRBY, former Chair of the Commission of Inquiry on the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and panel moderator, thanked Mr. Hawk for providing satellite pictures, which together with other evidence pointed to the existence of detention facilities which the Democratic People's Republic of Korea still denied.

KOCHIRO IIZUKA, Vice Secretary-General, Association of Families of Victims Kidnapped by “North Korea”, said that sadly, he had no memories of his mother who had been abducted by “North Korean” agents when he had been one year old. In September 2002, during the Democratic People's Republic of Korea-Japan Conference, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea had admitted for the first time that she had been abducted, and that she had been killed in a traffic accident. However, it turned out that this information had been fabricated, and this was an evidence about the misuse of information about abductees by the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. There were at least 17 Japanese citizens who were victims of abduction by the Democratic People's Republic of Korea; five had returned home but 12 remained abducted. There had been several hundred Japanese citizens whose abduction by the Democratic People's Republic of Korea could not be doubted. Given the fact that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea had abducted citizens of many other nations, this was an important international issue and States should unite to resolve it.

KWON EUN-KYOUNG, International Coalition to Stop Crimes against Humanity in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, referred to the recent executions and enforced disappearances of citizens in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea for the only reason of having a phone with access to forbidden foreign news in the country. Hundreds of public executions had been carried out in recent years on similar allegations. This policy sought to spread fear in the society. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s official national human rights report presented last year to the United Nations suggested that the death penalty was used only in cases of most serious crimes, but this obviously did not reflect the situation on the ground. Communication with those outside of the country was a crime in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

MICHAEL KIRBY, former Chair of the Commission of Inquiry on human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and moderator, said prisoners of war who were never returned constituted a large number of victims. Abductions also targeted nationals of other countries, and the number of persons forcibly disappeared within the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea should not be forgotten.

Statement by the Concerned Country

Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, speaking as the concerned country, rejected the panel discussion, which followed ill-minded political objectives and represented a product of conspiracy of the hostile forces led by the United States pursuing a plot against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. The report of the Commission had been based on false information provided by so-called “north Korean” defectors. The sponsors of the panel were not qualified to refer to the situation of other countries. A bad precedent was being created at the Human Rights Council, leading to an abnormal situation and would result in greater damage to the credibility of the Council. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea would continue to actively respond to such slander and to defend its social system as an independent country. All countries that had been struggling against politicization and double standards should reject the confrontational panel discussion.

Discussion

Japan said respect for human rights was one of the most important values underlined by the United Nations. It was an urgent matter for the entire humanity that the situation in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea needed to be solved immediately. Japan also requested the return of abductees. European Union remained gravely concerned by the findings of the Commission with regards to serious human rights violations in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. The Union continued to urge the Government to take immediate steps to halt all violations. Further, the delegation reiterated its support to the Commission’s recommendations, including that the United Nations Security Council should refer the situation in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to the International Criminal Court. Ireland welcomed the panel discussion, and fully supported the conclusions and recommendations of the Commission. Ireland was horrified by the catalogue and gravity of human rights violations involved, ranging from rape, forced abortion and infanticide in political prison camps, to violations of freedom of religion and belief. The delegation inquired if the panel could share their views on how ‘people-to-people contact’ could be best instituted and facilitated?

Albania strongly supported all efforts in the Human Rights Council as well as the General Assembly and the Security Council that aimed to put an end to the human rights violations in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. She asked about strategies to help gather information for the families of abductees. Cuba said it could not support any action that might lead to a regime change. Mechanisms such as the Universal Periodic Review fostered dialogue as the best possible way to address the issues. Germany shared the deep concern about the continuing grave, systematic and widespread violations of human rights in the country. The delegation completely rejected the “North Korean” notion of human rights. Further, the country was deeply worried about the suffering of the inmates in prison camps and other detainment facilities.

United States noted that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea remained one of the worst human rights violators in the world, and that it still held an estimated 80,000 to 200,000 persons, including children, in political prisons. Latvia said that the referral to the International Criminal Court by the Security Council would be a necessary step to ensure full accountability for human rights violations and welcomed the decision to place this situation on the Security Council’s agenda, as this demonstrated a clear acknowledgement that the widespread, systematic human rights violations had been committed. China said that this year marked the tenth anniversary of the Six Parties talks and it hoped that all parties would refrain from taking any action that might jeopardize the situation on the peninsula. Norway remained deeply concerned about the human rights situation in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, for the people, their dignity and their wellbeing, and said that the proposals for accountability deserved follow up. France called upon the Democratic People's Republic of Korea to end arbitrary detentions outside of legal procedures and recalled the leading role that the International Criminal Court could play in bringing about accountability. Czech Republic asked how to best pursue a coordinated action across the United Nations system aimed at improving the human rights situation in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and what role should the Human Rights Council play in this regard.

Liechtenstein strongly condemned the abductions of foreigners by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, noting that the momentum of the Commission should not be stopped. One of the key recommendations of the Commission had still not materialized, notably the referral of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to the International Criminal Court by the Security Council. United Nations Watch drew the attention of the Council to the plight of children from the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and their dangerous journey to freedom. The international community should demand that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea stop starving and oppressing its own people and respect their human rights. Human Rights Watch underscored the kidnappings of nationals from China, Japan, Republic of Korea, Thailand, Europe and the Middle East by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea since 1950. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea did not act alone. In the past two decades, many abductions and forced repatriations took place in and from China. China was complicit in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s crimes against returnees and its efforts to ensure silence and impunity for those crimes.

MICHAEL KIRBY, former Chair of the Commission of Inquiry on human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and moderator, said that the allegation that the members of the Commission of Inquiry were politically motivated could not hold. He had approached the position in the Commission in an independent manner and rejected allegations of bias or acting on behalf of the United States. The same was the case for other members of the Commission. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, in its intervention, had made no reference to the particular issue of abductions, which was being discussed at the Council today. What was the answer of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to the fact that there were more than 60,000 families who wanted to reunite or learn about their relatives? Once the Charter of the United Nations had been established on the basis of universal human rights, human rights and fundamental freedoms were no longer the business of only one particular country or regime, so the contention “mind your own business” could not be made in the Council.

MARZUKI DARUSMAN, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, stated that the international involvement with the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea had started with the great famine in the country in the 1990s, which had led to up to one million victims and a more active engagement of the international community. The Commission had subsequently brought together various reports and made a categorical statement that crimes against humanity had taken place. Recommendations from the Commission’s report had to be implemented. An accountability process had to be put in place, and a concerted effort was necessary to structure a mechanism for the accountability process from this very moment. Support of the international community was necessary in that regard.

DAVID HAWK, author of the book The Hidden Gulag: Putting Human Rights on the “North Korea” Policy Agenda, responding to the statement by the Democratic People's Republic of Korea that this panel was a conspiracy to eliminate the ideology and social system of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, said that the international community was concerned about the ideology of oppression. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea should address specific concerns of this panel in relation to disappeared and missing persons.

KOCHIRO IIZUKA, Vice Secretary-General, Association of Families of Victims Kidnapped by “North Korea”, sincerely hoped that his mother and other victims of abduction could return home and be reunited with their families.

KWON EUN-KYOUNG, the International Coalition to Stop Crimes against Humanity in
“North Korea”, asked the Democratic People's Republic of Korea to deal with hundreds of cases and individual cases submitted to it by non-governmental organizations, which the Democratic People's Republic of Korea had rejected as part of a conspiracy by the Government of “South Korea”. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea had the capacity to scrutinize those cases, and it should do so.

MICHAEL KIRBY, former Chair of the Commission of Inquiry on the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and panel moderator, said that one beneficial thing from this panel could be the acknowledgment by the two Koreas about separated families, which affected more than 60,000 persons. This was a Korean issue, and both countries had agreed to family meetings, and there was a possibility to accelerate this process by the use of new technology. Mr. Kirby expressed hope that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea would give consideration to this suggestion.

New Zealand welcomed the establishment of the presence of the Office of the High Commissioner for human rights field office in Seoul to further the work of documenting the human rights abuses in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. New Zealand asked the panellists for their views on the prospect of meaningful engagement by the Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea with the Special Rapporteur. Poland was concerned about subsequent enforced disappearances of persons in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, including those from other countries. What were possible effective steps that the international community could take to address the current situation? The Netherlands said that for many years the international community had expressed its grave concern about human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea seemed to have long dispatched labourers to a wide range of countries as part of a strategy to obtain foreign currency. Did such practice amount to slave labour? Costa Rica stressed that there had been a long and systematic practice of the abuse of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, whose perpetrators ought to be brought to justice. Costa Rica condemned the prevailing culture of impunity and called upon the Government to cooperate with the United Nations human rights mechanisms.

Australia stated that the Commission of Inquiry extensively documented the impact of “songbun,” a social system used as a basis to deny people their human rights through the sheer accident of birth to the wrong parents. It asked for panellists’ views on how the international community could best engage with the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to pragmatically improve human rights on the ground. Austria urged the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to immediately stop those systematic, widespread and grave human rights violations and to cooperate with the United Nations bodies and mechanisms. It welcomed the decision of the Security Council to add the human rights situation in that country to its agenda and to refer it to the International Criminal Court. Republic of Korea shared the deep concern of the panellists over the abductees taken by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. There were nearly 130,000 separated families, only half of whom were still alive. That humanitarian issue should be resolved immediately and the Republic of Korea urged the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to cooperate with United Nations bodies.

Lithuania strongly supported the work of the Special Rapporteur and reminded that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea had acceded to all international human rights treaties. Yet, it had committed a long list of human rights violations. Those crimes amounted to crimes against humanity. Lithuania urged the authorities of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to engage with United Nations bodies and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Syria refused that human rights be used as a pretext for interference in domestic affairs of countries. It served the political agenda of some countries, which would in fact do better to assess their own human rights record. The Council adopted policies that were far from protecting human rights, such as the statements made by the Special Rapporteur who said he would work to ensure the dismantling of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. The Council should instead act in a spirit of cooperation and mutual respect.

Russia said that the Human Rights Council was marked by politicization and that instead of having a genuine dialogue with the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, the Council was engaging in increasingly aggressive rhetoric. Estonia strongly encouraged the Democratic People's Republic of Korea to continue with the implementation of more than 50 Universal Periodic Review recommendations it had taken under consideration, and deeply regretted that no recommendation concerning the Commission of Inquiry’s findings had been accepted. Slovenia said that the panel would contribute to the visibility of the difficult human rights situation in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, adding that despite the publication of the Commission’s report a year ago, there was no progress in the human rights situation in this country.

Conscience and Peace Tax International, in a joint statement with Center for Global Nonkilling Said that the peaceful settlement conference of the Korean question had not yet happened and urged the Council to adopt a resolution calling for this conference to be held. World Evangelical Alliance said that the Commission of Inquiry’s report made it clear that there was not much to be proud of in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, whose leadership was notorious for grave violations of human rights. Venezuela said that country-specific mandates were not appropriate roads to addressing the human rights situation in any country, adding that the Universal Periodic Review was the mechanism which had shown the right road ahead.

United Kingdom said the scale and brutality of the sustained and systematic human rights violations in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea called for action, justice and accountability, and demanded how to best ensure the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s constructive engagement with the international community on these issues. Iran opposed the politicization of country human rights issues, and said the Human Rights Council should engage the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea in a constructive manner and contribute to the improvement of the human rights situation on the ground. Portugal reiterated its support to the Commission of Inquiry’s recommendation that the Security Council should defer the situation of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to the International Criminal Court, and strongly condemned systematic abductions, denial of repatriation and enforced disappearances of persons from other countries that had been carried out by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. Spain expressed support to the mandate of the Commission of Inquiry and to relevant resolutions by the United Nations system. It expressed concern over the systematic abductions carried out by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, and called on the authorities to conduct swift and thorough investigations on these cases. Canada called on the authorities of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to respect and protect the human rights of all its citizens and to address the essential needs of its population rather than to continue to fund military and nuclear programmes.

Belarus confirmed its opposition to country-specific mandates. They should not be politicized because as such they would not contribute to the improvement of human rights. Only when they were geared towards genuine dialogue could they be successful. Lao People’s Democratic Republic stated that the promotion and protection of human rights in any country should be based on principles of cooperation and genuine dialogue with full consent between the parties concerned. The realization of human rights should be based on national context. It called on the international community to continue positive engagement with the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. Slovakia remained seriously concerned about the serious human rights situation in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. It reiterated the need for the Special Rapporteur to enter the territory of the country. The Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea should immediately enter into dialogue with the international community in order to release abductees and to facilitate the reunification of families. Belgium stated that successive reports had confirmed the scale and gravity of human rights violations in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, which constituted crimes against humanity. It called on the Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to immediately cease all violations, in particular to release political prisoners and foreign nationals who had been held captive for half a century. Myanmar reiterated its principled position against country-specific mandates of the Human Rights Council, noting that they did not create an environment conducive for a genuine dialogue and constructive cooperation with concerned countries. The work of the Council should be guided by the principles of universality, impartiality, objectivity and non-selectivity.

Closing Remarks

MICHAEL KIRBY, former Chair of the Commission of Inquiry on the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and panel moderator, summarized questions raised in the discussion, which included issues of slave labour and workers abroad in conditions akin to slavery, the progress concerning the establishment of the Contact Group as recommended by the Commission of Inquiry, and how the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights field office in Seoul could be useful in further work on disappeared and abducted persons.

MARZUKI DARUSMAN, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, said that they were at the beginning of a vast area into which the international community would have to look into. Reports on slavery had emerged in the last period, and the issue had been elaborated on briefly by the Commission of Inquiry, but not in a comprehensive manner that this issue required. The Special Rapporteur would address the question of slavery in his next report. Some details on the establishment and composition of the Contact Group had emerged a few days ago, but more time was needed to reach sufficient clarity. The task of the Contact Group was to create greater understanding of the matter, and to bridge the interim period between two Council sessions. The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights field presence in Seoul would have an important role to establish the scale of international abductions that had taken place and that continued to take place. The most important challenge today was for the international community to see to it that the good intentions and good will of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea were manifested as the international community moved forward to address this issue.

DAVID HAWK, author of the book The Hidden Gulag: Putting Human Rights on the “North Korea” Policy Agenda, said that the avenues and procedures utilized to advance and protect human rights were simply not available in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea: there was no civil society, next to no independent press, almost no internet or international phone calls, and almost no human rights defenders. What was left was the expressions of concern by the international community. It was important to press for the continuation of dialogue between the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and the Special Rapporteur, and with the High Commissioner for Human Rights, and hopefully through the Contact Group, which could replace the failed forms of dialogue. It was also important to see with the Democratic People's Republic of Korea which of the recommendations by the Commission of Inquiry could be further addressed. The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights field presence in Soul needed to understand how it could contribute to documenting human rights violations. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea had been ignoring the United Nations resolutions for over a decade, and it was only when this Council started taking actions with the Commission of Inquiry and since it raised the issues of accountability that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea had started to engage in a dialogue.

KOCHIRO IIZUKA, Vice Secretary-General, Association of Families of Victims Kidnapped by “North Korea”, said the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea had not put its promises into action in relation to investigating abductions. There had been an insincere attitude from the authorities of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea in the last decade. It had been 30 years since the abductions started to happen, and they were now running out of time to protect the lives of the abductees.

KWON EUN-KYOUNG, International Coalition to Stop Crimes against Humanity in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, referred to cases of mistreatment in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, and underlined the absence of free media and civil society space in the country. The current national priority of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea was economic empowerment. However economic empowerment was not possible without respect and protection of human rights.

MICHAEL KIRBY, former Chair of the Commission of Inquiry on human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and moderator, agreed with the Russian Federation that a calm and constructive dialogue was needed. In response to the question by the United Kingdom on how to engage the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea into discussions on these issues, he said there should be dialogues between the countries in the Council and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea on technical assistance and other international cooperation required to solve abduction cases. It was also important to have a form of aggregate list of families affected by abductions, to ease contacts between family members through modern technologies. The Special Rapporteur on the situation in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea had to be granted access to the country. The Commission of Inquiry had looked for ways to open dialogue channels with individuals in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. The unfinished business of the Korean War should be dealt with. Bringing abductees and disappeared and their families together was not only a human rights obligation, it was also a human decency requisite.

Oral Update by the High Commissioner for Human Rights

ZEID RA’AD AL HUSSEIN, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, said that the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights field-based structure in Seoul was now operational and that its core objectives were to improve the human rights situation in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and to advance accountability. The issue of abductions and enforced disappearances would remain a crucial focus of its work. High Commissioner Zeid said that during his visit to Seoul he had met with a number of men and women who had left the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, some as recently as this year, who told him of the extraordinary trials of daily life there, severe discrimination based on the songbun system, crippling restrictions on freedom of expression, limitations on marriage, pervasive corruption, and the persistent fear that entire families could at any time be detained, without due process, for any real or perceived infraction. The High Commissioner also said that he had heard the deep hopes held by many among the Korean people – North and South – that there could one day be a peaceful reunification of the Korean Peninsula. Recent intra-Korean talks, and the agreement reached in late August, had raised hopes of progress on some issues, in particular family reunion, and progress on the reunion of separated families would be a key indicator of political will. Longer-term, it would be necessary to deal with the past and ensure justice and redress for victims of human rights violations to bring healing on both sides. The international community had a critical role to play in encouraging such progress.

The findings by the Commission of Inquiry that crimes against humanity had been and continued to be committed clearly invoked the international community’s responsibility to take action, which could include possible referral to the International Criminal Court. Last December, the Assistant Secretary-General for Human Rights had briefed the Security Council on the human rights situation in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. The field-based structure in Seoul would continue to gather information on the human rights situation in the country, to update and deepen the information gathered by the Commission of Inquiry and the Special Rapporteur. The stakes were very high; millions of people in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea continued to endure intolerable violations of their fundamental rights, and this acute and long-lasting suffering cried out for justice and for relief. There were also strong links between the oppressive practices in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and tension throughout the broader region: the outflow of persons from the country, international abductions and enforced disappearances, and the sustained military and nuclear focus of the government all had significant impact on the enjoyment of rights in the region and in the country. The Commission of Inquiry, the Special Rapporteur and many dedicated civil society activists and academics had irrefutably exposed the full dimensions of the human rights situation in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights was committed to working to bring near-term improvements and accountability for this situation.

Statement by the Concerned Country

Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, speaking as the concerned country, expressed disagreement with the statement made by the High Commissioner for Human Rights. The establishment of the Office of High Commissioner for Human Rights in Seoul was a political provocation. The very location of the office demonstrated that it was no more than a tool of hostile policy towards the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea by the United States and other hostile countries. The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights was taking sides with the anti-Democratic People’s Republic of Korea campaign, with the aim of undermining its credibility and replacing the current Government. The principle of impartiality and objectivity of the Council were thus violated.


For use of the information media; not an official record

CRC15/119E