[No. 24-15_Human Rights #3]
Hello, this is MAP(Migration to Asia Peace) Refugee News📰
Today we will share a statement regarding the case of manipulating refugee interviews. Please take a moment to review the statement.
We condemn the court’s decision to deny liability to the government officials and interpreters involved in the Ministry of Justice’s interview manipulation case.
by the Refugee Rights Network
On April 12, 2024, the Supreme Court decided not to hear the appeal filed against the plaintiff’s defeat for ‘the manipulation of refugee interviews by the Ministry of Justice’ case. The appeal made by the victims was against the decision on December 22, 2023. This has confirmed the ruling of the Seoul Central District Court Civil Affairs Division 10-3 (Presiding Judge Lee Sang-ah), which stated that the offending officials and interpreters were not liable for damages sought by the victims. We condemn the court’s irresponsibility for affirming the unlawful ruling that denied the liability of the offending officials and interpreters without even hearing the case.
The manipulation of refugee interviews is one of the most egregious violations of human rights since the implementation of South Korea’s refugee law. In October 2017, a court ruling highlighted significant procedural flaws, leading to an investigation by the Ministry of Justice in September 2018. The offending officials were disciplined in October 2019. In February 2020, a policy of full re-examination was implemented for around 2,000 asylum seekers who were interviewed in Arabic. In September 2020, the National Human Rights Commission recognized the human rights violations and made recommendations for system improvement. Through years of questioning by the victims and civil society, the illegality of the cases that used to be rushed to cover up and conceal has been revealed and confirmed. On December 3, 2021, the court recognized the responsibility of the offending officials, interpreters, and the state for compensation. Unfortunately, the court capriciously overturned this first court ruling, despite it being the culmination of nearly three years of waiting.
The appellate judgment, handed down on December 5, 2023, is a rambling list of reasons that are not convincing. The court held that the offending officials and interpreters were not guilty of filling out a false refugee interview form, stating that “it is difficult to think that the plaintiff, with his considerable knowledge and ability to communicate in English, believed that his reasons for seeking asylum would be accurately translated and recorded on the refugee interview form.” “Since refugee applicants have a chance to work and stay in the country, it is likely for them to provide comprehensive statements and evidence during the appeal process instead of the initial stage of the refugee application, even if they have valid reasons.” or that “there was a common concern among officials at the time of the incident that there were many cases of refugee applications for employment or economic purposes,” which is nothing more than bias and speculation. Additionally, the court dismissed a previous ruling from 2017 that recognized procedural illegality for false interpretation and false reporting. This was because they believed that “the head lawyer of the law firm that represented the case was criminally punished.” It also used the National Human Rights Commission’s decision as a basis for denying the responsibility of the perpetrating officials and interpreters, claiming that the decision “focuses on the responsibility of the Ministry of Justice and recommends system improvements.”
On the other hand, the appellate court’s ruling stated that while “there was a sufficient acknowledgment of the existence of wrongful acts in failing to properly verify specific factual circumstances during the refugee interview process”, it judged that “these acts were closer to negligence rather than intentional or gross misconduct”. The court justified this decision by stating that, at the time, the offending officials were not responsible for refugee screening, and the authorizing body neglected its duty of supervision. Additionally, there was an excessive increase in workload due to swift screening directives, along with structural issues stemming from poor working conditions such as a shortage of interviewers and interpreters. Moreover, the offending officials were commended for their diligent performance in handling tasks promptly.
However, it is difficult to accept the court’s decision to exonerate the offending officials, considering that they not only prioritized meeting performance targets in response to unlawful directives for swift screenings issued by the Ministry of Justice but also ignored the most basic duty of fully listening to the refugee applicants and faithfully recording them in the interview form. Not only that, they illegally fabricated the interview forms. Claiming that these actions were ‘unavoidable given the circumstances at the time’ makes the court’s decision to grant the offending officials impunity highly questionable.
The officials and the interpreter did not show remorse for their misconduct but rather abused their authority until the end of the trial. They illegally leaked information about the immigration status of other asylum seekers, used it as evidence in their favor, rationalized their actions, and did not hesitate to make xenophobic remarks.
The victim, who had already been recognized as a refugee through an arduous process, was once again treated as a “fake refugee” by the offending officials, interpreters, and their agents during the trial. Despite the painful and lengthy process, the victim endured secondary victimization with a sense of responsibility to hold the state and the perpetrators accountable for the refugee interview manipulation case. The first trial court recognized the liability of the perpetrating officials, interpreters, and the state, giving high evidentiary value to the plaintiff’s and other victims’ testimonies. However, the appellate court easily overturned the first trial court’s decision by merely transferring the arguments of the perpetrating officials and interpreters into the judgment. The Supreme Court turned a blind eye to the victims’ suffering without even trying to look deeper.
If no one is held accountable for the serious crime of “refugee interview manipulation,” the second and third cases could happen again at any time. The court’s decision further undermines the transparency, professionalism, and fairness of Korea’s refugee screening system. We condemn the irresponsible behavior of the court, which made an erroneous ruling based on prejudice without even bothering to review it. The court has a responsibility to control the misconduct of administrative agencies and their officials and to ensure that victims receive a fair trial.
April 17, 2024
51 organizations from the Refugee Rights Network