공감

On 9 May 2024, the Seoul Central District Court ruled that the Korean government must pay 10 million KRW in compensation to the victim of the so-called “hog-tying” torture at an immigration detention center. This is the first ruling in Korea to award monetary compensation for human rights violations at an immigration detention center.

(Left) Lawyers and activists from the Immigration Detention Network at the press conference on May 9 (Right) Jirim Kim speaking at the press conference. Source: Joint Task Force

In September 2021, a shocking CCTV photo was released showing M, who was detained at an immigration detention center after receiving a deportation order, being tortured in a bent-back position with both his arms and legs tied behind his back. For the past three years, together with the Joint Task Force on Torture Cases in the Immigration Detention Center, Gonggam has worked to improve the immigration detention system and support victims of abuses.

There were many changes after the case became public. The Ministry of Justice revised its regulation on the detention of foreigners regarding the use of disciplinary measures and “protective equipment”. The Constitutional Court of Korea ruled that Article 63(1) of the Immigration Act, which provides the legal basis for the establishment of immigration detention centers, is unconstitutional as it allows unlimited detention. However, no one has properly acknowledged or apologized for what happened to M, whose suffering served as the impetus for these changes. On the contrary, the Ministry of Justice seriously harmed M’s reputation by leaking unrelated information and videos of M to the media.

As co-counsel in this state compensation suit, we argued that M was subjected to at least 15 instances of ill-treatment through the use of illegal protective equipment, including “hog-tying”. We also argued that while M was detained in solitary confinement for a total of 63 days on 18 occasions, due process rights such as prior notice and the duration of confinement were violated. Finally, we argued that the Ministry of Justice’s unauthorized disclosure and distribution of M’s personal information harmed his reputation and that this constitutes secondary victimization.

The defendant, the Korean government, said they “deny all wrongdoing” during the first hearing. This undermined the findings of the Ministry of Justice’s internal investigation, which had partially acknowledged that some human rights violations had occurred, and the decision by the National Human Rights Commission. The government claimed that all its actions against M were within the “discretion of immigration authorities”.

However, the Court ruled that the government’s arbitrary calculation of the duration of solitary confinement was unlawful, as was the use of such equipment such as shackles, cable ties, and box tapes, that are not prescribed by law. In particular, the Court ruled that the three occasions of “hog-tying” were unlawful, as it harmed the dignity of the human person, based on the premise that human rights must also be guaranteed to foreigners in immigration detention centers.

There is no “discretion” to torture people through methods not prescribed by law, to repeatedly hold them in solitary confinement, or to defame torture victims as criminals. The Court made it clear that there is no such discretion for the State authorities in a democratic country, and such human rights violations are unacceptable.

This ruling is significant as the first ruling in Korea that found human rights violations in an immigration detention center and ordered monetary compensation to the victim. The ruling also confirms the principle that the human rights of foreigners must be respected in the operation of immigration detention centers.

The Korean government, including the Ministry of Justice, should take this opportunity to thoroughly reflect on the Court’s ruling and work to overhaul the immigration detention system to ensure that such incidents do not recur. Together with my co-counsel, I will vigorously argue the points that were not recognized on first instance on appeal.

Written by Jirim Kim