31/38 Role and achievements of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights with regard to the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea

Human Rights Council Thirty-first session

Agenda items 2 and 4

Annual report of the United Nations High Commissioner

for Human Rights and reports of the Office of the

High Commissioner and the Secretary-General

Human rights situations that require the Council’s attention

Role and achievements of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights with regard to the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea

Report of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for

Human Rights*

Summary

The present report, submitted pursuant to Human Rights Council resolution 28/22,

provides updated information about the situation of human rights in the Democratic

People’s Republic of Korea and the activities of the Office of the United Nations High

Commissioner for Human Rights in Seoul between 1 April and 31 December 2015.

* The present report was submitted after the deadline in order to reflect the most recent developments.

United Nations A/HRC/31/38

I. Introduction

1. On 28 March 2014, the Human Rights Council adopted resolution 25/25, in which it

requested the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights

(OHCHR) to establish a field-based structure to follow up on the recommendations made in

the report of the commission of inquiry on human rights in the Democratic People’s

Republic of Korea (see A/HRC/25/63), and to provide the Special Rapporteur on the

situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea with increased

support. In the resolution, the Council mandated the field-based structure to strengthen

monitoring and documentation of the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s

Republic of Korea, to ensure accountability, to enhance engagement and capacity-building

with the Governments of all States concerned, civil society and other stakeholders, and to

maintain visibility of the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of

Korea, including through sustained communications, advocacy and outreach initiatives.

2. The present report is submitted pursuant to Human Rights Council resolution 28/22,

in which the Council requested OHCHR to submit a comprehensive report at its thirty-first

session on the role and achievements of the Office, including on the field-based structure,

with respect to the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

The report covers the period from 1 April to 31 December 2015.

3. On 22 May 2015, the Government of the Republic of Korea signed an interim host

country agreement with OHCHR for the establishment of the field-based structure in Seoul.

The High Commissioner formally opened OHCHR (Seoul) on 23 June 2015.

4. During the reporting period, OHCHR was not granted access to the Democratic

People’s Republic of Korea. Thus, the information contained in the report is gathered from

various reliable sources, including Governments, non-governmental organizations (NGOs),

academics and individuals who have left the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

Information contained in the report was cross-checked to the extent possible. However, the

lack of access of independent human rights monitors to the Democratic People’s Republic

of Korea is a challenge to independent verification.

II. Regional and political context

5. Despite reports of an improving economy, particularly in Pyongyang, the political

and economic situation in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea remains fragile. The

risk of increased regional tensions is exacerbated by the fact that no progress has been made

on issues affecting the region at large, including the alleged abduction of Japanese nationals

by the Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

6. The leadership of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea continues to focus on

enhancing its military capability, which has been the central aspect of its communication

with the population and with the outside world. The prioritization of military expenditure is

the most visible demonstration of an inadequate use of resources in a country that depends

on humanitarian assistance.

7. In 2015, there were reports of a continued practice of institutional purges and

sanctions targeting some members of the political leadership. The most recent example has

been the reported “re-education” sentence that was received for unknown reasons by the

Secretary of the Workers’ Party, Choe Ryong Hae, in November 2015.

8. In August 2015, tensions escalated between the Democratic People’s Republic of

Korea and the Republic of Korea after two soldiers from the Republic of Korea were

seriously injured by landmines on 4 August in the demilitarized zone. On 25 August, the

Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and the Government of the

Republic of Korea reached an agreement in which the former expressed regret over the

mine explosion and committed to lifting the state of “semi-war” that it had declared, while

the latter agreed to stop broadcasting propaganda over loudspeaker along the demilitarized

zone. The two Governments also agreed to hold further talks to improve ties, resume family

reunions and encourage exchanges between NGOs in various fields. Family reunions took

place from 20 to 26 October 2015 (see para. 38 below).

9. On 30 October 2015, the Korean Central News Agency, the official news outlet of

the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, announced that the Central Committee of the

Korean Workers’ Party had decided to organize the seventh Workers’ Party Congress in

May 2016, the first congress of the Party since October 1980. The Congress will help

indicate the future direction of public policy, and it may lead to the adoption of new

regulations or the appointment of new officials.

III. Cooperation of the Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea with the United Nations, including international human rights mechanisms, on the promotion and protection of human rights

10. In September 2015, discussions on possible steps towards technical cooperation

between the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and OHCHR resumed. In December

2014, the Government had decided to suspend such talks, following the adoption of General

Assembly resolution 69/188 and the Security Council meeting on 22 December on human

rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

11. On 21 September 2015, during the thirtieth session of the Human Rights Council,

and as decided by the Council in its resolution 28/22, OHCHR organized a panel discussion

on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, including

the issue of international abductions, enforced disappearances and related matters. Many

Member States expressed support for the steps taken by OHCHR to implement the

recommendations of the commission of inquiry on human rights in the Democratic People’s

Republic of Korea, including the establishment of OHCHR (Seoul). The Government of the

Democratic People’s Republic of Korea expressed disagreement with the holding of the

panel, stating that it constituted a politically motivated attempt to change the political

system of its country. Some Member States expressed opposition to the country-specific

nature of the panel, and pointed to the universal periodic review as the suitable forum for

country-specific discussions.

12. OHCHR has been seeking to engage with the Government of the Democratic

People’s Republic of Korea to discuss human rights. In late 2015, the Government gave

signs that it was making efforts in that regard. In particular, the High Commissioner

welcomes the invitation to visit the country that was extended by the Minister of Foreign

Affairs in September 2015.

13. On 10 December 2015, the Security Council held a debate on the situation of human

rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. The High Commissioner was invited

to brief the Council and recalled the ongoing nature of serious human rights violations in

the country. He emphasized that accountability must go hand in hand with an open dialogue

to encourage the Government to undertake reforms. The Government of the Democratic

People’s Republic of Korea issued a statement in which it strongly denounced the

convocation of the debate. 1

14. On 17 December 2015, the General Assembly adopted resolution 70/172 (119

Member States voted in favour, 19 against and 48 abstained). In line with resolution

69/188, the Assembly encouraged the Security Council to continue its consideration of the

relevant conclusions and recommendations of the commission of inquiry and take

appropriate action to ensure accountability, including through consideration of referral of

the situation in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to the International Criminal

Court and consideration of the scope for targeted sanctions against those who appear to be

most responsible for acts that the commission has said may constitute crimes against

humanity.

15. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is party to four international human

rights treaties: the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International

Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the Convention on the Elimination of

All Forms of Discrimination against Women and the Convention on the Rights of the

Child. In November 2014, the Government ratified the Optional Protocol to the Convention

on the Rights of the Child on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography.

In September 2014, it accepted recommendations made in the context of the universal

periodic review to expedite the ratification of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with

Disabilities, which it had signed in July 2013.

16. In 2014, the Government accepted 113 of the 268 recommendations received during

the second cycle of the universal periodic review, as well as 81 recommendations from the

first review. They included recommendations to submit reports to United Nations human

rights treaty bodies, notably the Committee on the Rights of the Child and the Committee

on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women. OHCHR has offered to provide

technical assistance to facilitate the implementation of the accepted recommendations.

Other accepted recommendations relate to economic and social rights, the rights of women

and children, human rights education, a rights-based approach to development and family

reunification.

17. The mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the

Democratic People’s Republic of Korea was established in 2004 by the United Nations

Commission on Human Rights. The current mandate holder is Marzuki Darusman, whose

term expires in July 2016. None of the successive Special Rapporteurs has been granted

access to visit the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. In addition, at the end of 2015,

requests from five special procedures to visit the country remained unanswered. 2 The

Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of

Korea conducted two visits to Seoul during the period covered in the present report, from 7

to 10 September 2015 and from 23 to 27 November.

1 Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, DPRK will counter US anti-DPRK “human rights” racket

with tough stand. See www.uriminzokkiri.com/index.php?ptype=gisa3&no=216959&pagenum=29

(available in Korean only).

2 The following special procedures have issued requests to visit the country: the Special Rapporteur on

freedom of religion or belief, in 1999; the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the

right to freedom of opinion and expression, in 2002; the Special Rapporteur on the right to food, in

2009; the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, in 2015; and the Working Group on Enforced or

Involuntary Disappearances, in 2015.

IV. Overview of the situation of human rights

A. Rights to life, liberty and security of the person

18. During the period under review, OHCHR received reports of executions, apparently

amounting to arbitrary executions. The Criminal Code of the Democratic People’s Republic

of Korea prescribes the death penalty for a wide range of offences, as do, reportedly,

several promulgations and instructions issued by the political leadership.

19. In May 2015, the then Minister of Defence, Hyon Yong Choi, was reported to have

been executed for alleged treason. In August, it was reported that Vice Premier, Choe Yong

Gon, had been executed in May 2015 for expressing disagreement with the Supreme Leader

over the forestation policy. Owing to the lack of information on those executions and the

use of capital punishment in general, it is extremely difficult to verify such reports.

20. Reports that particularly cruel methods, including anti-aircraft guns, are used to

carry out executions raise additional serious concerns. In April 2015, the Committee for

Human Rights in North Korea, an NGO based in Washington, D.C., released satellite

images allegedly showing the execution in October 2014 of several officers by anti-aircraft

machine guns. 3

21. The Korea Institute for National Unification has noted a remarkable rise over the

past few years in the use of the death penalty in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea

for watching or distributing videos from the Republic of Korea and for smuggling or

trafficking narcotics. 4 OHCHR received reports that three women were executed in August

2015 in Hyesan City, Ryanggang Province, allegedly for using their mobile phones to

watch and distribute soap operas from the Republic of Korea. The executions were

allegedly carried out to set an example and deter the viewing of foreign materials, which

are considered to be illegal. Although that was an extreme case, it was reportedly part of a

trend towards harsher punishments for those illegally accessing news sources and other

foreign materials.

22. Large political prison camps appear to remain in operation in at least four locations.5

There were credible reports of poor conditions in political prisons and other places of

detention and imprisonment. Conditions were reportedly particularly severe in temporary

detention centres where suspects were allegedly held at the early stage of their arrest. Some

victims reported to OHCHR that they were forced to sit in a restricted position for hours

and threatened with physical punishment if they moved. They also reported that access to

food was grossly insufficient, with many detainees depending for their survival on their

relatives bringing food. Former detainees also reported a lack of access to independent

lawyers.

23. Moreover, ill-treatment and torture is reportedly routinely used during the initial

interrogation stage, apparently with the aim of obtaining a confession that conforms to the

authorities’ version of events. Information gathered by OHCHR from various sources

referred to cases of beating and kicking, sleep deprivation and verbal abuse. Cases were

also reported of solitary confinement for several days in a cell so small that the detainee

was unable to sit down.

3 See www.hrnkinsider.org/2015/04/unusual-activity-at-kanggon-military.html.

4 Korea Institute for National Unification, White Paper on Human Rights in North Korea 2015, p. 16.

Available at www.kinu.or.kr/eng/pub/pub_04_01.jsp.

5 See www.hrnk.org/uploads/pdfs/Hawk_HiddenGulag4_FINAL.pdf.

24. On the occasions of the seventieth anniversary of the liberation from Japanese

colonial rule, in August 2015, and of the foundation day of the Workers’ Party, in October

2015, the Government reportedly released a large number of prisoners. However, allegedly

that did not appear to include political prisoners. In 2015, the Government repatriated at

least four nationals of the Republic of Korea who had been detained in the Democratic

People’s Republic of Korea. Two citizens of the Republic of Korea who had been convicted

for espionage in June 2015 reportedly continued to serve life sentences, as did a third

citizen of the Republic of Korea who had been sentenced to life imprisonment in 2014 for

espionage and setting up an underground church. The three individuals were reportedly

missionaries. In December 2015, a Canadian pastor, Hyeon Soo Lim, was reportedly

convicted of crimes against the State and sentenced to life imprisonment with hard labour.

B. Rights to freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and freedom of

association

25. Severe restrictions on the rights to freedom of expression, including the right to

information, peaceful assembly and freedom of association remained in place. While article

67 of the Constitution of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea guarantees citizens

“freedom of speech, press, assembly, demonstration and association”, in practice, there is

no protection for those rights. In their annual report on global Internet usage for 2014, the

International Telecommunication Union (ITU) and the United Nations Educational,

Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) ranked the Democratic People’s Republic

of Korea at the bottom of 191 countries, with a zero percentage of individuals using the

Internet. 6

26. Some external bodies took steps to improve access to information inside the

Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. For example, in November 2015, the British

Broadcasting Corporation announced plans to expand its radio coverage to the country.

Several radio stations based in Seoul, some of which are staffed with people who have left

the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, continued to broadcast programmes for the

Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. The audience for those programmes is reportedly

significant, particularly in the border regions, but no official data can be obtained on the

number of listeners. That is in part owing to the difficulty of conducting surveys inside the

Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and to the risk of persecution that listeners face if

they are caught by the authorities.

27. During the reporting period, there appears to have been an increased crackdown by

the authorities on the clandestine use of Chinese mobile phones along the border with

China. Where it was previously reportedly relatively easy to communicate with the outside

world through such mobile phones, interference with mobile phone signals has reportedly

become more effective. There were credible reports that conversations on mobile phones

with those inside the country were becoming more infrequent even compared to 2014.

When they take place, conversations on mobile phones reportedly tend to end quickly as

users fear being detected by the authorities.

6 ITU and UNESCO, The State of Broadband 2015: Broadband as a Foundation for Sustainable

Development (Geneva, ITU and UNESCO, 2015), annex 5. Available at

www.broadbandcommission.org/documents/reports/bb-annualreport2015.pdf.

C. Freedom of movement and the right to seek asylum

28. In order to travel within the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, citizens are

required to obtain a permit from local authorities. Such permits are said to be valid for only

one trip, for which the destination and purpose must be explicitly clarified. Some

individuals are reportedly able to circumvent that requirement by paying bribes.

29. Citizens of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea are also prohibited from

leaving the country without permission. Information from people who have left the country

indicates that controls along the border between the Democratic People’s Republic of

Korea and China have tightened since 2011. That information appears to be supported by a

notable decrease in the number of nationals of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea

who reach the Republic of Korea. In 2015, some 1,276 persons reportedly arrived in the

Republic of Korea (80 per cent of them women), as opposed to 1,397 in 2014. Other

factors, such as the rotation of guards along the border, the reported increase in the cost of

engaging a broker to secure passage and, in some areas, possible increased economic

opportunities domestically, may have contributed to the decrease. Some people also partly

attribute the situation to increasing difficulties with mobile communications, which makes

it problematic to arrange brokers. In 2014, the authorities reportedly warned residents in the

border areas that they and their families would face severe punishment for assisting

individuals who were planning or attempting to cross the border, or for failing to report

such cases.

30. In past years, a large number of brokers, many of them operating mainly for

financial gain, have assisted citizens of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to cross

the border. The fees charged by brokers have reportedly increased as movement across the

border has become more difficult. Additionally, women who wish to leave the Democratic

People’s Republic of Korea with the assistance of a broker remain vulnerable to human

trafficking, which, unlike passage using a broker, is coercive. Reportedly, some women

were indeed subjected to trafficking in that context.

31. Individuals repatriated to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea from China

and other counties are at risk of prolonged unlawful detention, ill-treatment and torture.

Those found to have sought to defect to the Republic of Korea or to have been in

communication with Christian organizations suffer particularly harsh punishment and risk

imprisonment in political prison camps, as they are regarded as having committed

particularly serious political crimes.

32. Despite the risk of torture and other violations facing those who are returned to the

country, some neighbouring States have refouled refugees to the Democratic People’s

Republic of Korea. On 22 October 2015, a group of nine refugees, including an infant and a

teenager, were arrested in Viet Nam and transferred to China. They were reportedly

transferred to a town close to the border with the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea,

indicating that they were at risk of being forcibly repatriated. 7 In a statement issued on 3

December 2015, the Government of China reiterated that it considered those who had fled

the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea as illegal immigrants rather than refugees.

33. The Committee against Torture, in its concluding observations on the fifth periodic

report of China, expressed concern at the rigorous policy of China of forcibly repatriating

all nationals of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea on the ground that they had

illegally crossed the border solely for economic reasons. The Committee took note of over

100 testimonies received by United Nations sources indicating that persons forcibly

7 See http://ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=16784&LangID=E.

repatriated to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea had been systematically subjected

to torture and ill-treatment. The Committee recommended that the Government of China

should immediately cease forcible repatriation of undocumented migrants and victims of

trafficking to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, and allow personnel of the

Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees unimpeded access to

nationals of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea who had crossed the border, in

order to determine if they qualified for refugee status (see CAT/C/CHN/CO/5, paras. 46

and 47).

34. While illegal crossings at the border have declined, from January to September

2015, some 139,700 citizens of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, 117,900 of

whom were male, reportedly crossed legally into China. Such international travel requires

permission from the Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.8 Tens of

thousands of workers have reportedly been contracted by the Government of the

Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to work in foreign companies in China, the Russian

Federation and other countries, mostly in construction and other manual jobs. Those

workers reportedly live in poor conditions, are subject to lengthy working hours and

oversight and limitations on their movement. They reportedly receive only a fraction of

their pay, as the hiring companies pay the Government of the Democratic People’s

Republic of Korea directly.

D. Discrimination against women

35. Discrimination against women continued to limit their full participation in economic

and social life. Married women are traditionally exempted from holding official jobs.

Following the surge of private economic activities in the late 1990s, most such activities

have been carried out by married women. They can more easily engage in the informal

market and in informal trade because, unlike men, they do not have to take up official State

employment. Thus, women who engage in cross-border trading activities with China have

reportedly been disproportionately affected by restrictions at the border area.

36. There were credible reports of trafficking in women from the Democratic People’s

Republic of Korea into China. In some cases, that reportedly resulted in forced marriage to

Chinese men and other forms of sexual exploitation. Those women are extremely

vulnerable in China; they are at a constant risk of forced repatriation to the Democratic

People’s Republic of Korea. Children born to those women and fathered by Chinese men

are stateless as they are recognized by neither of the Governments of their parents’

countries. The women rarely have family support to draw on, and their illegal status and

fear of being returned to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea make them highly

unlikely to contact the authorities if they or their children are abused.

37. Pregnant women who were returned to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea

were reportedly detained and forced to have abortions. In most cases, abortions were

reportedly carried out to prevent the women from giving birth to children that were half

Chinese. 9

8 See http://en.cnta.gov.cn/Statistics/TourismStatistics/201511/t20151104_750749.shtml.

9 Korea Institute for National Unification, White Paper on Human Rights in North Korea 2015, p. 108.

Available at www.kinu.or.kr/eng/pub/pub_04_01.jsp.

E. Separated families

38. From 20 to 26 October 2015, the Governments of the Democratic People’s Republic

of Korea and the Republic of Korea organized family reunions, pursuant to their 25 August

2015 agreement. During the reunions, around 90 individuals from the Republic of Korea

and 96 individuals from the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea met with relatives

from the other country.

39. The Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s

Republic of Korea has recommended that the Government allow separated families to

reunite without delay and to use unmonitored communication facilities, such as telephone,

mail and e-mail (see A/70/362, para. 81 (f)). The issue of separated families calls for an

urgent resolution. The remaining family members on each side of the border are elderly,

and in the Republic of Korea alone, over 60,000 people have died without having had a

chance to be reunited with or to see their loved ones. The current format of reunion, which

allows people to meet for only a few hours, with no hope of ongoing contact or meeting

again, is a source of psychological suffering. The separation of families must be seen as not

only a humanitarian issue, but also a violation of human rights affecting people at multiple

levels, including the rights to family life, to freedom of movement and to the truth.

F. International abductions

40. It is estimated that between 80,000 and 100,000 civilians were abducted from the

southern part of the Korean peninsula to the north during the Korean War. In addition, after

the armistice, the Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea carried out

international abductions, primarily in the Republic of Korea and Japan, although a number

of individuals were reportedly abducted from other countries. The Government of the

Republic of Korea estimates that some 500 persons who were abducted after the end of the

Korean War remain in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

41. The Government of Japan has officially recognized 17 Japanese citizens as

abductees, 5 of whom returned to Japan in 2002. In Japan, as of November 2015, national

investigations continued into the fate of approximately 870 missing individuals in whose

cases the possibility of abduction could not be ruled out. Relatives of victims, including the

parents of Megumi Yokota, who was abducted from Japan in 1977 when she was 13 years

old, met with representatives of OHCHR (Seoul) in October 2015 and conveyed

information on their long-standing efforts to bring their loved ones back to Japan.

42. In late May 2014, the Governments of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea

and Japan agreed to take steps towards resolving the issue of Japanese nationals who had

been abducted, to identify and return the remains of those who had died in the jurisdiction

of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, and to address the case of Japanese spouses

who had accompanied their husband or wife to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

The Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea agreed to establish a

special investigation committee to conduct comprehensive investigations, while the

Government of Japan agreed to lift some bilateral sanctions. However, as at December

2015, the outcome of the investigation by the committee had not been published.

43. During its sessions in March and May 2015, the Working Group on Enforced or

Involuntary Disappearances transmitted six cases of alleged abductions to the Government

of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (see A/HRC/WGEID/105/1, para. 36, and

A/HRC/WGEID/106/1, para. 22). The victims of the alleged abductions reportedly

disappeared in 2003 and 2011. As at December 2015, the Government had not responded to

those letters of allegation.

V. Activities of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights

A. Establishment of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner

for Human Rights in Seoul

44. On 28 March 2014, the Human Rights Council adopted resolution 25/25, in which it

requested OHCHR to follow up urgently on the recommendations made by the commission

of inquiry on human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea in its report, and

to provide the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Democratic

People’s Republic of Korea with increased support, including through the establishment of

a field-based structure.

45. In paragraph 10 of resolution 25/25, the Council mandated the field-based structure

to strengthen monitoring and documentation of the situation of human rights in the

Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, to ensure accountability, to enhance engagement

and capacity-building with the Governments of all States concerned, civil society and other

stakeholders, and to maintain visibility of the situation of human rights in the Democratic

People’s Republic of Korea, including through sustained communications, advocacy and

outreach initiatives.

46. On 22 May 2015, the Government of the Republic of Korea and OHCHR concluded

an interim host country agreement for the establishment of the field-based structure in

Seoul.

47. On 23 June 2015, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights

inaugurated the field-based structure in Seoul during his four-day visit to the Republic of

Korea; he also met with government officials, representatives of civil society and people

who had left the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. During his visit, the High

Commissioner emphasized the importance of addressing fundamental human rights as an

integral part of ensuring peace and stability in the Korean peninsula.

48. An initial team of human rights officers began implementing the mandate of

OHCHR (Seoul) immediately after the inauguration of the office, which comprises six staff

members: the office Representative and Deputy Representative, two human rights officers,

one administrative member of staff and one interpreter.

49. OHCHR (Seoul) is funded from the regular budget of the United Nations and hosted

by Seoul metropolitan government. Additional funding is sought to carry out core office

activities outlined in Council resolution 25/25, including monitoring, capacity-building and

outreach activities.

B. Activities of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for

Human Rights in Seoul

50. In accordance with Council resolution 25/25, OHCHR (Seoul) has carried out

monitoring and documentation of the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s

Republic of Korea, outreach and capacity-building. It has been engaging with

Governments, civil society and people who have left the Democratic People’s Republic of

Korea, as well as with United Nations entities and humanitarian workers operating inside

the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, and other stakeholders.

51. The work of OHCHR (Seoul) builds on the work of the commission of inquiry. The

field office has been gathering individual testimonies to contribute to possible future

accountability processes and other transitional justice mechanisms. As of December 2015,

it had interviewed 35 individuals who have left the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

52. During a mission to Japan, from 9 to 13 November 2015, staff from OHCHR

(Seoul) met in Tokyo and Osaka with representatives of the Government and civil society,

including researchers. They also met individuals who had left the Democratic People’s

Republic of Korea, and relatives of victims and of possible victims of abductions. In

addition, they interviewed individuals who had left Japan for the Democratic People’s

Republic of Korea during the “Paradise on Earth” campaign, from 1958 to 1984, and had

suffered serious human rights violations in that context.

53. OHCHR (Seoul) worked closely with Governments, the diplomatic community in

Seoul, civil society and others to raise awareness of the human rights situation in the

Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. Office staff made presentations at civil society

seminars, including a Korean Bar Association seminar on human rights in the Democratic

People’s Republic of Korea, on 30 June; the Asia Human Rights Forum on regional

cooperation for transitional justice in Asia and human rights in North Korea, on

18 September; the North Korea Human Rights and Peace Forum at Seoul National

University, on 1 October; the Seoul Dialogue for Human Rights, on 11 November; the

United Nations human rights monitoring mechanisms and the Democratic People’s

Republic of Korea, organized by Human Asia, on 12 November; the Korean War

Abductees Family Union Conference on Transitional Justice, on 30 November; and the

tenth anniversary of the Radio Broadcasting for North Korea Initiative, on 10 December.

Staff from the office also addressed the fourth North Korean Human Rights Forum in

Europe, organized on 19 October in Spain by the Korea Institute for National Unification;

and the International symposium on international cooperation towards resolution of the

abduction issue, organized by the Government of Japan in Tokyo, on 12 December.

54. On 27 November 2015, the Representative of OHCHR (Seoul) addressed the third

North Korean human rights symposium at the National Assembly of the Republic of Korea,

organized by the Ministry of Justice, the National Assembly Human Rights Forum and the

International Parliamentarians’ Coalition for Asian Human Rights. The OHCHR

Representative provided an overview of the work of the office and of its cooperation with

the Government of the Republic of Korea.

55. On 10 December 2015, OHCHR (Seoul) organized an event in Seoul on human

rights and separated families, gathering members of such families who spoke about the

painful experience of separation, as elderly family members’ health deteriorates and

chances to be reunited with their loved ones decrease. Individuals whose relatives were

abducted to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea described the challenges they faced

after the abduction. Other speakers included representatives of the Ministry of Unification,

university researchers and members of NGOs working with separated families, as well as

the current and former ambassadors for human rights of the Republic of Korea. Those

affected by the issue called for increased action at the national and multilateral levels to

help resolve the problem.

56. On 14 December 2015, the Judicial Policy Research Institute of Korea and OHCHR

(Seoul) co-hosted a seminar on human rights and legal assistance for individuals from the

Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. The event examined possibilities to move forward

in legal approaches to addressing human rights violations in the Democratic People’s

Republic of Korea. Participants included representatives of the Government of the Republic

of Korea, the diplomatic community and civil society.

57. OHCHR (Seoul) has been active on social media. Its website is available in English

and Korean at seoul.ohchr.org and is regularly updated. OHCHR (Seoul) has also

established several social media platforms. Its Twitter account (@UNrightsSeoul) and the

Facebook page have attracted more than 3,000 subscribers. The Representative of OHCHR

(Seoul) has regularly conducted interviews with the media in the Republic of Korea and

elsewhere.

VI. Conclusions and recommendations

A. Conclusions

58. During the period under review, the human rights situation in the Democratic

People’s Republic of Korea remained of serious concern, with reports of arbitrary

killings, torture and unlawful detention; continued discrimination and violence

against women; and persistent and severe restrictions on freedoms of expression

(including access to information), association and movement.

59. OHCHR (Seoul) began carrying out its mandate after its inauguration on 23

June 2015. Lack of access to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is a major

obstacle, and it is hoped that the invitation that has been extended to the High

Commissioner to visit the country will constitute a first step towards addressing the

issues of access and dialogue.

B. Recommendations

60. The High Commissioner recommends that the Government of the Democratic

People’s Republic of Korea:

(a) Engage constructively with the United Nations system, including

OHCHR and its office in Seoul, and collaborate with OHCHR to develop a concrete

plan of technical assistance for the promotion and protection of human rights in the

country;

(b) Cooperate with United Nations human rights treaty bodies, including by

submitting reports to the relevant treaty bodies;

(c) Invite the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the

Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and other special procedure mandate holders

to visit the country;

(d) Develop a strategy to implement the universal periodic review

recommendations it has accepted, with support from OHCHR and other relevant

bodies;

(e) Halt all executions and declare and implement a moratorium on the

death penalty;

(f) Provide international humanitarian organizations and human rights

monitors with unhindered access throughout the country, including to all places of

detention;

(g) Dismantle all political prison camps and release all political prisoners;

(h) Provide the families and countries of origin of all individuals who have

been abducted or forcibly disappeared with full information on their fate and

whereabouts; allow survivors and their descendants to return immediately to their

countries of origin; and identify and repatriate the physical remains of those who have

died, working in close cooperation with their families and the authorities of their

countries of origin;

(i) Lift all restrictions on the rights to freedom of expression, peaceful

assembly and freedom of association that are incompatible with international law, and

decriminalize any acts that constitute the legitimate exercise of such rights, including

gaining access to external sources of information through satellite television channels,

foreign media and the Internet;

(j) Lift all restrictions and penalties on freedom of movement, including

prosecution, extrajudicial punishment and torture, of those who seek to leave or have

left the country without permission;

(k) Prosecute and bring to justice individuals responsible for alleged crimes

against humanity; ratify the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court; and

ensure that victims of crimes against humanity and their families are provided with

adequate, prompt and effective reparation and remedies, including telling them the

truth about the violations concerned.

61. The High Commissioner recommends that the international community strictly

adhere to the principle of non-refoulement. No country should repatriate individuals

to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, where they are likely to face torture or

other serious human rights violations.