hankyoreh

On International Conscientious Objectors Day

Prosecutor: “Do you view citizens carrying guns at the time of the May 1980 Democratization Movement in Gwangju as an act of violence?”

Oh Gyeong-taek: “I don’t think it can be stated in such schematic terms.”

It was Apr. 2 in courtroom 303 at Seoul West District Court, where an appellate hearing was being held for Oh Gyeong-taek, a 31-year-old who refused to enter the military for his mandatory service on the grounds of his pacifist convictions – as opposed to religious beliefs such as affiliation with the Jehovah’s Witness denomination.

The prosecutor followed the first question with additional ones directed at Oh concerning scenarios in which ordinary people had taken up arms.

“So when citizens carried weapons in May 1980, was that against your conscience or in accordance with it?”

“If I had been there, I may have picked up a gun myself.”

“Let us suppose then that the Japanese military came storming in with guns and threatened to kill the socially vulnerable people you are talking about. Would it go against your conscience to take up a weapon to oppose them?”

“I think there are many things that I could do for vulnerable people in the event of an invasion without picking up a gun. [In the response regarding the Gwangju Democracy Movement,] I said it would not violate [my convictions] in terms of the right to resist based on a common sense understanding of democracy.”

The prosecutor continued the questions.

“I repeat the question. Would it be against your conscience or in accordance with it to take up arms against a Japanese invasion?”

Oh received an 18-month sentence in his first trial last July, shortly after the Constitutional Court recognized conscientious objection to mandatory military service. After first asking Oh about the social activities he had engaged in to combat war and promote peace, the prosecutor then asked a series of questions to “verify” his convictions before asking the court to maintain his sentence from the original trial.

In addition to the Constitutional Court, the Supreme Court also produced its first-ever not-guilty ruling last November in a case of conscientious refusal to perform military service. The decision was followed by a number of rulings acquitting others for refusal on grounds of religious faith – but neither the courts nor prosecutors have figured out what to do about cases like Oh’s involving refusal on grounds of non-religious personal convictions. The problem is a lack of suitable tools for proving a person’s inward beliefs.

In addition to documenting their own religious activities, Jehovah’s Witnesses have also relied on testimony from fellow believers as proof, as well as the histories of family members who had served time in the past for conscientious objection. The situation is different in the case of conscientious objection on grounds of pacifist convictions.

“In the case of personal conviction as opposed to religious faith, we need to closely examine the reasons and personal experiences behind the decision to refuse military service,” said the prosecutor in Oh’s trial.

“Simply because a person ‘strongly holds’ a particular belief, it cannot be recognized as legitimate grounds for refusing military service based on its strength alone,” the prosecutor argued. The prosecution also demanded a history of Oh’s activity with civic groups and their articles of association, as well as documents providing information about his home environment, youth, and social experiences.

Conscientious objectors also submit records of their activities while enrolled in school and as part of civic groups as evidence, but pacifist convictions remain difficult to demonstrate. In most cases, a person’s conscientious actions are only outwardly manifested in exigent situations. For this reason, conscientious objectors struggle in court with the burden of “proving” their convictions without any clear standards to rely on.

Hong Jeong-hoon, 29, submitted records of his school activities and hospital counseling. “It was like I was scrambling to produce whatever I could,” he recalled. But prosecutors argued he had “insufficiently demonstrated how long” he had held his convictions for. The prosecution also said it would pull up records of Hong subscribing to a game involving shooting at opponents.

Cho Hyeon-cheol, a Sogang University professor who taught Oh, also appeared as a witness in his trial. Based on his experience observing Oh over a period of roughly a decade, Cho said, “Having seen his different activities in university, I was not surprised to hear that he was a conscientious objector.”

“[The conscientious objection] sounds more like the Oh Gyeong-taek I know than imagining that young man wearing a military uniform,” Cho added.

Prior to the Constitutional Court and Supreme Court rulings, a total of six known precedents existed of trials for refusal to perform military service involving people who were willing to risk going to prison to uphold their pacifist beliefs. While the number was small, the court rulings in their cases appears likely to have a major impact on the upcoming establishment of “guidelines” by the Ministry of National Defense’s alternative service review committee.

The alternative military service system that has been finalized is a punitive one that extends the service period to 36 months, or double the active-duty period – considerably higher than the 1.5 times recommended by international organizations – and requires individuals to board together in a detention center. The idea is that the starting point for the review should be the individuals’ commitment to risking social and economic disadvantage to uphold their convictions. In that sense, some observers argued it was inappropriate for the prosecution to question Oh about hypothetical “scenarios” – a move likened to the Japanese shogunate forcing people to trample on images of the cross in order to identify members of the Catholic faith.

“The Constitutional Court and Supreme Court determined that conscientious objection is a matter of exercising basic rights, but the prosecutors still seem to be treating [objectors] as criminals,” said attorney Im Jae-seong of the law firm Haemaru on Apr. 21.

By Ko Han-sol, staff reporter

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