The bill initiating an official inquiry into lingering questions of recent history that the ruling and main opposition parties have agreed to vote on in April's extraordinary session of the National Assembly has been seriously distorted from its original state in the negotiation process, and civil groups are very upset. The clause that is problematic is the part where it defines what is to be investigated, since those will be limited to cases where there are legally defined grounds for a review of judgments already finalized by the courts. Civic groups are saying that will making facing past issues of history impossible and are calling it "another cover-up, this time using the law."
Criminal law allows for reviews of court judgments when there is evidence discovered that would lead to a lesser penalty than the original decision. The new legislation is about finding new evidence through new investigations. So it is a contradiction to limit inquiries to only those that legally qualify for reviews, since reviews can only happen when new evidence is discovered. It is essentially impossible to establish that a case needs to be reviewed when all that exists are the records already known to be available. That is a ruinous clause for making it so that cases that have already been settled by the courts cannot be subject to a new inquiry.
Members of the National Assembly are saying the bill is the way it is out of consideration for legal stability and that the "Committee on Past History" can initiate inquiries with its own judgments. That assertion, however, is very self-serving and irresponsible. If the subjects of any inquiry file lawsuits claiming that inquiries must stop because no new evidence has been discovered, it will become impossible for those inquiries to continue. Also, it would be hard to say that investigating an extremely limited number of cases about which there remain suspicions and investigating them in line with legal procedures hurts "legal stability." On the contrary, correcting past wrongs committed through legal means would contribute to legal stability.
The bill in its current form has the committee's investigative authority considerably watered down, particularly in regards to bank accounts and communications records. Meanwhile it is overprotective of those subject to investigation with inclusion of a clause that calls for heavy punishment for disclosing investigation findings. Adding to that restrictions on what can be investigated and you have a bill that could quite possibly turn out to exist in name but be otherwise ineffective. If it is going to be true to the original goal of healing the pain of history by facing the truth then the legislation needs to be done properly.
The Hankyoreh, 20 April 2005.
[Translations by Seoul Selection (PMS)]
[Editorial] History Inquiry Must Start with Proper Legislation |
