Q1. It seems that the mission of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Korea is quite different than previous transitional justice efforts (such as the Presidential Truth Committee on Suspicious Deaths), due in large part to the emphasis on reconciliation.
A1. The correct title for the commission mentioned in the parenthesis above is “the Presidential Commission on Suspicious Deaths in the Military.” As indicated in its name, there’s a clear distinction in its scope of investigation compared to our commission. It only deals with cases in the military, while our commission deals with overall human rights abuses beginning during Korea’s democratization process to the end of the authoritarian regime of 1992. Additionally, there was also a commission named the Presidential Truth Commission on Suspicious Deaths, which ceased its investigative activities on June 30, 2004. (Please see our website at http://jinsil.go.kr/English/index.asp On the bottom right side, you will find the button titled, "Former Truth Commissions.") The other commissions in Korea involved in related truth-finding work investigate distinctive areas covering either different time periods or different sectors of society. Although there are several other past-related commissions in Korea, they are quite different from our commission in terms of their mission and objectives. We believe truth-finding work is an initial step to reach a possible reconciliation. Without it, the achievement of reconciliation would be practically impossible. All of the above-mentioned commissions are dedicated to uncovering the truth from past wrongdoings. In this sense, they share the same qualifications to investigate cases for reconciliation, which is the fundamental goal of all truth-finding activities.
Q2. To what extent is reconciliation a goal of the TRCK? and what mandate does the TRCK have?
A2. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission Korea does not have any authority to prosecute or provide economic compensation to victims, but it has some rights to investigate filed cases, and submit recommendations to the concerned governmental organizations. The commission must also submit investigation reports to the President and the Parliament twice a year, and afterwards, report its findings to anybody interested. As commented above, we believe truth-finding is the first step toward reconciliation. Although the commission doesn’t have direct authority to prosecute, petitioners are still empowered by using the commission’s findings for judicial settlements; often resulting in some kind of compensation.
Q3. How is reconciliation pursued (Truth-telling? Apologies from perpetrators? Reparations from the courts?)?
A3. You understood correctly. Measures below are used to seek reconciliation between perpetrators and victims. 1. Listening to the victims' narratives and truth-telling through commission’s investigative reports, 2. Recommendations to public authorities to give formal apologies to victims, 3. Recommendations of new retrials to the court and judicial settlements, 4. Restoration of honor to the victims by submitting recommendations to the Korean government and conducting memorial services, etc. 5. Recommendations for revisions to modern history by accepting the newly-verified truth of the commission.
Q4. I have read the TRCK's 2008 brochure, which does a good job at laying out the framework of reconciliation. I would just like to have some additional information to better understand the activities of the TRC, government, and civil society in terms of reconciliation efforts. I am trying to pin down if the TRCK is a turning point in transitional justice in Korea in regard to reconciliation. Could you direct me to previous efforts at reconciliation in South Korea (in the post-military regime period)?
A4. The investigative scope of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission Korea largely covers three different areas: Overseas independence movements during the Japanese occupation, mass civilian sacrifices before and during the Korean War, and human rights abuses during Korea’s democratization. There were previous efforts to seek truth and settle past wrongdoings. In 1948, a special law was passed to prosecute Japanese collaborators during Japan’s colonial regime, yet it was annulled in 1951; this law is largely acknowledged as unsuccessful and a large number of those accused of collaborating with the Japanese occupational government were never brought to trial. Secondly, in the political vacuum after the fall of Syngman Rhee in 1960, the victims' families of the Korean War protested to demand settlement for their grievances. The Korean National Assembly responded by investigating the massacres. However, after the May 16 Military Coup of 1961, the military oppressed those activities and abolished further investigation. Many even prospered during the U.S. occupational government, the military dictatorships, and to this today.
Although, during the period of military dictatorships in Korea, little attention was given to the truth-finding work in the governmental arena, there were constant movements among civil groups and the public dedicated to rectifying past incidents; the Gwangju Democratization Movement in 1980, the Student Demonstration at Konkuk University in 1987, etc. These are good examples of how people and civil groups continued to pursue the truth even under severe authoritarian repression. In 1995, a valuable lesson was proven with the prosecution and sentencing of two former authoritarian rulers of Korea, Chun Doo-hwan and Roh Tae-woo; even successful coups can be punished. The laws for rectifying the past have been passed under the Korea's government under Kim Dae-jung (1998-2003). The systematically implemented truth-finding work at the governmental level only began when former president Roh Moo-hyun took office.
Q5. What is the level of truth that the TRCK is trying to achieve? Would you say it is more of a narrative-truth or legal truth (beyond a reasonable doubt)?
A5. Could you define “narrative-truth” and “legal truth”?
Q6.I saw on the website that an MOU was recently signed with Chile in the area of transitional justice. Congratulations! What other nations has the TRCK worked with or looked to for guidance? Are there any other nations that the TRCK or Korean government has formal agreements with in the realm of transitional justice?
A6. Many other countries also share similar stories that Korea has, and thus leaving responsibilities of settling the past to all. Not to mention the countries involved in the I and II World Wars, there still are plenty of countries out there to look for exemplary stories in regard to truth-finding works. Among those, we can easily look to cases from South Africa, Chile, Argentina, Peru, Rwanda, Cambodia, Indonesia, Spain, even Canada and the U.S. Our commission tries to build an international alliance in relations to make truth-finding process soother for respective nation. Currently, we’re working toward developing an MOU with Argentineans.
Q7. In terms of the proposals for a special pardon, reinstatement, or reduction of penalties, how often are these proposals honored and/or accepted?
A7. The TRCK is only empowered with submitting recommendations in accordance with its findings.
Q8. How does the TRCK pursue reconciliation between offenders, victims, and victims’ families? Was this a part of the mandate of past truth commissions in Korea?
A8. Through recommendations, the TRCK has assisted to bring about formal apologies from the government, retrials on previous judicial cases, documentation of historical records, memorial services, and etc.
Q9. What are some examples of legal and political reconciliation measures for offenders? What are some examples of measures for national reconciliation and integration?
A9. After completing each investigation, the TRCK concludes whether the truth was found or not. Every investigation report includes recommendations to the government (the government is ultimately the responsible party for most of the cases filed at the TRCK). Common recommendation measures include official apologies from the government, retrials, memorial services, and education on human rights and sustainable peace, etc.
Q10. In your opinion, would you say that the State has shown respect for TRCK proposals and decisions to this point? Are there any guarantees of this?
A10. To implement its recommendations, the TRCK submits its findings to the Recommendations Follow-Up Board of the TRCK, which is under the Ministry of Public Administration and Security. As of May 2008, a total of 49 findings from the TRCK were submitted to the Recommendations Follow-Up Board of the TRCK.
Q11. Has the Reconciliation Foundation been established yet? If so, what services and exhibitions have been held?
A11. The Reconciliation Foundation has not been established yet. The TRCK is currently working towards this, and expects to see the draft by March 2009.
Q12. What is the role of the Reconciliation Commission? Is there any information as to the scope, power, and organization of this proposed body?
A12. The Reconciliation Commission was constituted on June 19, 2007, in order to deliberate and resolve measurements concerning restoring honor to victims, issuing special pardons for the victims, recommending reinstatements, preventing similar cases from reoccurring, and etc.
Q13. Some argue proceeding truth-finding works only disrupts the social unification and deepens the conflicts between parties, which do not consent one another.
Main purpose of truth-finding task includes healing the pains from wrongly written past through unearthing truth, which has been covered and eventually, and eventually attempting reconciliation between perpetrators and victims.
According to the survey conducted by SISA JOURNAL, a monthly political magazine in South Korea, in February, 2008, 61.8% of total respondents said they felt necessary the truth-finding works to be completed, thereby setting a better standard for the future. 29.4% responded it only produces social disorientation and is not necessary.
Q14. Recently, there seem to be an attempt to combine the existing commissions involved in truth-finding works, and merged to the TRC. Where the TRC stands and what would be expected problems if so?
January 21, 2008, the Grand National Party of Korea submitted a draft outlining a merge of several truth-finding commissions into the TRC.
There are a few expected problems in this regards.
First, there are distinctions between the TRC’s mandates and the mandates of those 9 truth-finding commissions. The TRC extensively deals with investigations to find truth by a group, while the other commissions are rather focus on individual cases of reparation, building memorial monuments, restoring honors of the dead.
Second, if the merge proceeds, it is expected that petitioners at the TRC would ask for economic compensation and/or memorial services/moments which were promised in the precedent commissions, which may cause great confusion in maintaining consistency for the TRC.
Third, the TRC is already overloaded with a total of 10,954 petitions; only 29% thereof, 3,182 were concluded, and its mandate to be expired in 2010. Adding more cases to the TRC without guaranteeing adequate resources will apparently only increase improbability of tasks of the TRC being completed within the designated term, by 2010.
Fourth, recently the Board of Audit and Inspection of the Republic of Korea released it is necessary to introduce a bill or similar sorts of sufficient legislatorial prerequisites to implement the above-mentioned draft.
