hankyoreh

Members of civic groups, including the Center for Military Human Rights Korea and MINBYUN-Lawyers for a Democratic Society hold a press conference in front of the Supreme Court in Seoul on Thursday. (Yonhap News)

For the first time ever, the Supreme Court of Korea has upheld the acquittal of a conscientious objector who refused enlistment in active service due to personal convictions rather than religious doctrine.

The Supreme Court accepted the defendant’s reasons for refusing enlistment, namely that he could not accept the military system because he felt antipathy as a queer man toward the uniform group culture and its imposition of standards of masculinity and that he had formed a conscientious position advocating non-violence and pacifism while taking part in demonstrations against war and violence.

This is a meaningful ruling that broadens the scope of what is meant by “freedom of conscience.”

In the past, the only cases in which conscientious objection had been recognized were those involving members of the Jehovah’s Witnesses faith, who refuse to carry arms because of clear religious doctrine.

But early this year, the alternative service review committee in the Military Manpower Administration (MMA) began granting the opportunity for alternative service for those objecting to military service based on personal convictions. In February, the Supreme Court acquitted a defendant who refused to participate in reserves training for the same reason.

The precedent set by the Supreme Court with this acquittal of a conscientious objector could be seen as establishing a legal precedent to recognizing all forms of conscientious objection rather than restricting it to a particular faith. Hopefully, the alternative system that entered effect last year can be perfected and find its proper footing in the wake of this ruling.

The alternative service review committee was set up in June 2020 to review whether to grant alternative service to conscientious objectors in the wake of a 2018 Constitutional Court decision, which found the lack of provisions for alternative service in the Military Service Act to be an unconstitutional violation of freedom of conscience.

As of April 2021, a total of 1,208 people had been granted alternative service; only four of them were not Jehovah’s Witnesses. Conscientious objection on the basis of personal rather than religious convictions represents a minority among minorities.

With this latest Supreme Court ruling, we look forward to seeing the alternative service review committee showing a more proactive attitude toward acknowledging these people’s right to alternative service.

Since the Constitutional Court’s ruling, the MMA has stopped submitting legal accusations for conscientious objectors. Its attitude is that it now favors the alternative service review approach.

The problem lies in the cases of people accused and indicted before the court’s decision.

Even now, people’s human rights are being violated in investigations and trials in the name of “determining the genuineness” of their conscientious objections. The questioning they face borders on harassment, as their text messages, game-playing history, and other personal information are rifled through to put their “conscientious beliefs” to the test.

It’s time to honor the Constitutional Court’s decision by leaving their alternative service cases for the review committee to decide, rather than the courts. In the interest of fairness, those who have already been convicted should be either pardoned and reinstated or given the opportunity for a special retrial.

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