Police revise some suspect-interrogation practices; National Human Rights Commission of Korea questions their effectiveness

[Financial News] The police have partially accepted the National Human Rights Commission of Korea’s recommendation to improve the practice of judicial police assistants independently preparing suspect interrogation records. However, since the Police Investigation Rules have not been amended, critics say the recommendation may have limited effect in changing practices on the ground.
The National Human Rights Commission of Korea said on the 9th that it had determined that the National Police Agency had partially accepted its recommendation to improve the practice of judicial police assistants preparing suspect interrogation records.
The commission had recommended on July 10 that the Commissioner General of the Korean National Police Agency amend Article 39 of the Police Investigation Rules. It considered the provision contrary to the intent of Article 197 of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Republic of Korea, which distinguishes the investigative powers of judicial police officers and judicial police assistants.
The recommendation followed a complaint. While being questioned as a suspect in an open interrogation room at a police station, the complainant feared that details of the questioning could become known to others. The complainant also filed a complaint with the commission, saying that an officer in the room had made inappropriate remarks about the complainant’s alleged crime and caused them to feel humiliated.
The commission dismissed the complaint itself, but found that the judicial police assistant had violated the principle of due process by independently exercising investigative powers and preparing suspect interrogation records, among other things, during the investigation. The commission’s reasoning was that, as judicial police assistants support judicial police officers during investigations, suspect interrogations must also be conducted under specific direction and supervision.
In response, the National Police Agency amended the Rules on Investigation on the 8th of last month, adding a provision requiring judicial police assistants to work under the specific direction and supervision of judicial police officers. It also issued guidance requiring the top of a suspect interrogation record to state that the suspect is being questioned under a judicial police officer’s direction, and the bottom to bear the names and seals or signatures of the person directing and supervising the questioning and the participants.
The National Human Rights Commission of Korea viewed the National Police Agency’s measures as having brought some improvement to the practice of judicial police assistants independently exercising investigative powers. It determined that the original recommendation had been partially reflected by requiring suspect interrogation records to state that the questioning was conducted under a judicial police officer’s direction and supervision and to identify the person responsible.
However, the National Police Agency’s failure to amend Article 39 of the Police Investigation Rules, as recommended by the commission, was cited as a limitation. The agency only added direction and supervision procedures to the Rules on Investigation, leaving unchanged the existing provision specifying who may prepare suspect interrogation records.
The National Human Rights Commission of Korea pointed out, “Given the limitations imposed by relevant laws and regulations, including Article 243 of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Republic of Korea, which requires judicial police personnel to participate when a judicial police officer questions a suspect, it is difficult to expect any substantial improvement.”
[email protected] Seo Ji-yun Reporter