National human rights institutions worldwide to address “threat” in South Korea
2 April 2009 11:47 pm

On 24 March 2009 at the Human Rights Council, the representative of the Mexican human rights commission addressed the reductions in personnel and operations of the National Human Rights Commission of Korea. Here is the statement presented, on behalf of seven national human rights institutions (Afghanistan, Australia, India, Ireland Malaysia, New Zealand and South Korea).
On 24 March 2009 at the Human Rights Council, the representative of the Mexican human rights commission addressed the reductions in personnel and operations of the National Human Rights Commission of Korea. Here is the statement presented, on behalf of seven national human rights institutions (Afghanistan, Australia, India, Ireland Malaysia, New Zealand and South Korea).
 
The 1993 Vienna Declaration and Programme for Action (VDPA) was particularly important for National Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs). It affirmed their constructive role in the promotion and protection of human rights at the national level and called on member states to establish and strengthen independent and effective NHRIs in line with the relevant international standards (Paris Principles, UN GA Res 48/134) endorsed by the states participating in the Vienna World Conference. Since 1993, and most recently at its 63rd Session in 2008, the General Assembly has repeatedly and unanimously called on states to respect these important principles.
 
One of the fundamental principles enshrined in the Paris Principles is the guarantee of independence. This is reflected in, for example, freedom from executive interference in the organisation of the NHRI, its functional autonomy, and the requirements of adequate funding to ensure the smooth conduct of its activities.
 
With these commitments in mind, we wish to express our deep concern regarding recent threats to the independence of NHRIs due to various economic, political or administrative reasons, which undermine their capacity to carry out their mandate effectively.
 
For example, some NHRIs have faced extreme budget cuts, which severely challenge their ability to perform their mandates. While we are fully aware of the difficulties faced by governments as a result of the current economic downturn, we are concerned by the increasing number of reports from NHRIs that are facing proposed measures that would negatively affect their functional autonomy and effectiveness.
 
Another example which has become a source of great concern is the proposed significant reductions in personnel and operations faced by the National Human Rights Commission of Korea. Despite the concerns expressed by the international human rights committee, including the High Commissioner for Human Rights, the government plans to restructure the organisation of the commission, which would downsize staff by 20% and seriously affect its core operations. Imposing these measures on the Commission interferes with the ability of the Commission to function as an independent and effective national human rights institution.
 
Furthermore, other NHRIs have faced, the replacement of members of their governing bodies by government before the completion of their term. Provisions such as this in the founding law of an NHRI allow for undue executive direction in its affairs, thereby hampering its independence.
 
Cases such as these undermine the independence of NHRIs' by disrupting their management and capacity to determine their organizational priorities and basic operations. This seriously compromises NHRI compliance with the Paris Principles. In turn, this not only affects the international standing of a particular NHRI, but casts a shadow on the sincere commitment of its government to the international human rights system.
 
We therefore urge governments, particularly in the cases noted, to ensure that the continued independence and effectiveness of NHRIs is maintained.