Press conference by human rights rapporteur

 

On Democratic People’s Republic of Korea

 

(Issued on 1 November 2004.)

Vitit Muntarbhorn, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, told correspondents at a Headquarters press conference today that, although he had not had access to the country, he had tried to engage its representatives where possible.  He said he welcomed information from the country and had invited collaboration wherever possible, even informally, because he was working in good faith to help to promote human rights there.

Mr. Muntarbhorn, who was named Special Rappporteur in July, said he had presented his first report to the Third Committee yesterday, and had tried to promote a constructive approach in his work.  He had had a meeting with the country’s ambassador in Geneva a few weeks ago, but had been met “as a famous academic” rather than as the Special Rapporteur.

Mr. Muntarbhorn said that he had reported on the constructive developments in the Democratic People’s Republic, which included the fact that it was party to four main human rights treaties.  That meant that the country was already engaging with the United Nations system and the human rights system to some extent.  Those treaties were the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; the Women’s Convention and the Children’s Convention.  The country had also appeared before three human rights committees –- under the covenant on civil and political rights, the covenant on economic, social and cultural rights, and the children’s convention.  As such, a whole range of recommendations were already targeted towards the Democratic People’s Republic. That situation represented a good engagement already.

He said the country had invited members of the Committee on the Rights of the Child into Pyongyang this year.  That meant that access had been granted to at least one United Nations agency, even though he (the speaker) had not yet had access.  Also, some United Nations agencies were present in Pyongyang already.  In addition, the country had some structures that could be used to protect human rights.  Like all countries, it had a constitution which stipulated various rights.  The key challenge was not the normative side, but had to do with how those were implemented.

He said that he had told the Third Committee that the key issue of right to life, particularly through food, remained.  Since the middle of the 1990s, the food shortage had been critical and, from consultation with other United Nations agencies, the assessment was that there was still need for food assistance in a humanitarian sense.  However, checks by the United Nations had so far had been very limited in terms of how the food was distributed.  There had been a variety of opinions as to whether such food was being diverted for other clandestine uses.  Currently, there were no random checks, even though some checks were available.  The United Nations needed to emphasise accountability, transparency and monitoring throughout.

There was also the question of right to liberty and security of the person on which there were many allegations, affecting not only citizens of the Democratic People’s Republic but also other nationals.  There had been practical problems in terms of allegations of detention, with complaints about prisons, extreme prisons of different kinds, and allegations of violations of liberty of the person affecting women and children and others.  Although he could not verify those allegations, the massive nature of the allegations suggested a pattern which gave rise to serious concern.  There had been the well-known situation of abductions of Japanese, which had been admitted to by the authorities in the Democratic People’s Republic.  While some cases had been resolved, others were pending and needed to be clarified expeditiously.

Mr. Muntarbhorn said another element was the question of freedom of movement and the issue of displacement. In the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, it was very difficult to move because permission was required.  If one did not get such permission, he might be criminalized.  That situation applied to moving both externally or internally.  The equivalent of an exit visa was needed to leave the country.  Since the 1990s, that situation had been accentuated by the food crisis because people had to move to find livelihoods.  There were two types of movements that could be linked with the refugee situation.  One involved those who moved because of political transgressions or persecution who were the classical case of refugees in international law.  Many of those cases had appeared in neighbouring countries and were in the news almost every day, in one way or the other.  He strongly advocated the need to abide by international principles of protection, particularly “no push back and no forced return back to the country of origin or areas of danger facing those people”.

He said the other type of movement involved those who had left, not so much for political pressures but for economic reasons, including hunger.  There was a question as to whether such people were mere migrants when they left.  That situation needed to be looked at in a very balanced manner.  Even if they left their country of origin for economic reasons, they might still be persecuted or prosecuted upon return for having left without an exit visa.  In international law they could be said to be potentially refugees, because they feared persecution upon return to their country of origin.  They were “refugee sur classe” in international law.  Even if their status remained unclear, they needed to be protected and needed to have access to the main agency dealing with refugee issues, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), which still did not have access to all the areas where such people were to be found.  That situation called for solidarity, and sharing of burden and responsibility.  If the recipient countries were not willing to take such people, the third country option should be explored more in terms of resettlement.  That option had been available on some fronts, but needed to be looked at more realistically for the future.  Helping the first country of asylum was important because without such help such a country might begin pushing those people back.  From recent statistics, it was now known that more women had been on the move, particularly to the key neighbouring countries.  The likelihood of them being easy prey for human trafficking and smuggling was a great possibility.  There had been many reports of violence against them.

Mr. Muntarbhorn identified another main issue as the other civil rights and liberties, particularly freedom of expression, association and religion, as well as basic political rights.  It was known that in non-open countries, those were a very sensitive area.  Such countries liked the economic side of human rights but not the civil political rights because it questioned the legitimacy of the whole setting.  Although there had been some possible liberalisation on some fronts, particularly with regard to religion, there remained many queries with regard to how that liberalisation had been in terms of genuine liberalization.  There remained still a lot of problems with regard to freedom of expression and association in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

He added that the specific situation of certain vulnerable groups, particularly women and children, remained problematic.  Before 1995, the situation of women and children had actually been good, with access to schooling for over 90 per cent of the children, though the quality of such schooling needed to be analysed.  The status of women had also been well-supported by State machinery.  Since 1995 when there was a food shortage, however, there had been a decline of the status of those groups.  People had been on the move and there were more street children.

He said he had made some recommendations to the Democratic People’s Republic and to the international community, and the message was that the country should follow the norms and the standards they had agreed to in the treaties they were party to.  The country also needed to reform its laws and practices that were still not up to par.  In addition, the linkage between human rights, democracy, peace, sustainable development and demilitarization was very important.

Moreover, the notion of the rule of law should be used as an engagement process with the Democratic People’s Republic, particularly to invite the improvement of the administration of justice.  There was also the need to improve the judiciary to make it more transparent and credible, to have checks and balances against the abuse of power, to have protection and safeguards for those who were arrested, to move towards reform of the administration of justice, to end preventive detention and the detention of political prisoners.  In addition, there was the need to treat people on the move humanely, to avoid prosecuting them, to address the root causes, and to have effective redress, including in regard to the non-nationals affected by various abductions.  There was also the need for humanitarian access, transparency and accountability as well as some incentive in terms of possible technical help, possibly from the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. The final message for the international community was to invite it to support those recommendations, as well as to uphold the protection of refugees and those who were displaced.  There should also be unimpeded access for humanitarian organizations, as well as humanitarian aid, particularly food, alongside transparency, accountability and monitoring.

In response to a question from a correspondent, he said that the country’s response to his address to the Third Committee had been a basic denial of his mandate.  The country had been rebutting that mandate throughout, but he still hoped that he could collaborate with the country in order to help, bearing in mind that the objective was to promote and protect human rights.  He had always asked to meet with representatives of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, but had not been able to do so in New York, even though he had requested such a meeting.  He would also seek to have access to the country.  Even without access, much information was already available and he would use such information in a balanced and independent manner.

On another question, he said that a handful of United Nations agencies, including the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF), the World Food Programme (WFP) and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), were working in the country.  The most catalytic, in terms of food, particularly delivery, had been the WFP, which had been actively bringing in supplies.  Monitoring of the distribution had been restricted, and even interpretation was provided by the Government rather than outside interpretation, which could be more objective.  There was no random monitoring going on anywhere.  The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea wanted to move beyond humanitarian aid to more substantive development assistance.  By implication, the country was wishing for less, not more, monitoring.  However, whatever aid or assistance the United Nations gave, it required very concrete monitoring, not less.  That had to be well-negotiated.  The process was being negotiated with the country, and was based on a consolidated appeal process.

Responding to another question, he said that there was a variety of statistics on the estimated number of political prisoners in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.  From his sources, among non-governmental organizations and others, there was supposed to be a substantial number of such prisoners.  Apart from political dissidents, returnees from neighbouring countries who were refugees and who ended up in various types of incarcerations could be considered as political prisoners.

He said that the fact that the United Nations set up a mandate on a country showed the seriousness of the situation there.  There were not that many country mandates.  The mandate that set up his post contained many serious allegations, such as those with regard to violence against women and infanticide regarding those who came back pregnant from neighbouring countries.  While he could not verify those allegations, the massive reports coming in indicated the seriousness of the concern and a certain pattern.

On the status of refugees in China, he noted that the UNHCR still did not have access to the border areas of China.  He urged more access for the United Nations agencies on that front, noting that China was a party to the 1951 Refugee Convention.  Expressing understanding for China’s concerns in regard to asylum seekers, he said the best solution was to carry out confidence-building with China, so that it could adopt a more humane approach in terms of seeking other solutions, such as third country resettlement if it was not willing to take in the asylum seekers.  If those people were not protected by their country of origin, they deserved protection, no matter how they were classified.

* *** *