hankyoreh

Seoul Central District Court chief Kang Hyung-joo responds to a question at at the National Assembly Legislation and Judiciary Committee’s parliamentary audit of Seoul High Court and Seoul Central District Court on Oct. 5. (by Kang Chang-kwang

The chief of Seoul Central District Court, which issued a warrant for an autopsy on the body of late farmer Baek Nam-ki, said in a parliamentary audit that the warrant‘s limiting terms (restrictions on search, seizure, and examination methods and procedures) could be read as mandatory.

The conditional warrant issued for an autopsy on Baek, who died after being knocked over by a police water cannon jet at a protest in Seoul last year, was a matter of heated contention between the ruling and opposition parties at the National Assembly Legislation and Judiciary Committee’s parliamentary audit of Seoul High Court and Seoul Central District Court on Oct. 5.

When asked about the nature of the “conditional warrant” that day by the People‘s Party’s Lee Yong-ju and other opposition lawmakers, Seoul Central District Court chief Kang Hyung-joo explained that limiting terms included in the autopsy warrant were intended “partly for citation, partly to dismiss.”

“The idea was that there would be citation within a specific limiting scope and dismissal in other instances,” he said.

Kang went on to say the limiting terms could be read as obligatory. When asked by Minjoo Party lawmaker Back Hye-ryun if the limitations on methods and procedures for the warrant‘s execution “could be described as mandatory terms rather than recommendations,” Kang replied, “One could interpret it that way.”

In response to a follow-up question from Back on whether it would violate the law to execute a warrant without following its mandatory terms, Kang said, “I think it has to depend on the restrictions.”

Another focus of questioning was on how the warrant’s validity should be viewed if discussions with Baek‘s family members fall through. When asked by Justice Party lawmaker Roh Hoe-chan if the police could forcibly execute the warrant in the event that discussions are unsuccessful, Kang said execution “is a matter for the investigative agency to decide.”

At the same time, he cautioned, “Searches and seizures are not unlimited, and restrictions may apply according to the proportionality principle and the principle of minimal infringement.”

“I think a warrant with restrictions itself could be a matter for subsequent trial,” he added.

Ruling and opposition party lawmakers went on to attack the court for evading responsibility with an irregular “conditional warrant.”

“Resolving disputes is a crucial role of the courts, but this warrant appears to have only accelerated the conflict,” said Minjoo Party lawmaker Lee Choon-suak.

Saenuri Party lawmaker Oh Shin-hwan said, “The only way to establish the authority of the court is to make judgments that conclusively remove the potential for conflict.”

During the audit on Oct. 5, opposition party lawmakers argued that the warrant’s execution would violate the law if the conditions were not adhered to.

“They‘ve talked about ‘discussions’ [with regard to the autopsy warrant], but the word ‘discussions’ doesn’t appear anywhere in the warrant - it talks about ‘must execute’ and ‘must enforce,’” noted Minjoo Party lawmaker Park Ju-min, who stressed the need to observe the limiting terms.

In contrast, ruling party lawmakers suggested the limiting terms were merely supplementary, arguing that performance of an autopsy should come first. Referring to terms limiting the site of the autopsy procedure, Saenuri Party lawmaker Joo Kwang-deok noted, “It says to perform [the autopsy] in that location if the family members desire it, but it doesn‘t seem to say anything about the investigating body and family members discussing what location to perform the autopsy in.”

In response, Kang said the terms “could be interpreted along those lines.”

Prior to the main questioning that day, opposition lawmakers requested that the Seoul Central District Court judge who issued the autopsy warrant be added as a witness, but the idea was rejected after ruling party objections.

“To make sense of a confusion situation, we need to have the judge who issued the autopsy warrant present himself,” said Park Ju-min.

Minjoo Party lawmaker Park Beom-kye agreed, arguing that “the court needs to be the one ultimately resolving all disputes.”

In response, Joo Kwang-deok said judicial officers “speak through their verdicts.”

“The judge’s opinion is interpreted as saying that an autopsy should be performed to clearly establish the cause of [Baek’s] death, but that additional factors should also be taken into consideration,” Joo argued.

As the back-and-forth exchanges continued, Saenuri Party lawmaker and Legislation and Judiciary Committee chairperson Kweon Seong-dong rejected the opposition’s demands, which he said could “lead to results that harm the independence of courts.”

By Hyun So-eun and Kim Min-kyung, staff reporters

Please direct questions or comments to [english@hani.co.kr]