Constitutional Court Rules on Limited Scope for Retrial Requests

The Constitutional Court has ruled that a provision in the criminal procedure law limiting the right to request a retrial to a deceased person's spouse, direct descendants, or siblings is unconstitutional.

On June 24, the court issued its decision on Article 424, Section 4 of the criminal procedure law with a 7 to 2 vote, declaring it unconstitutional but allowing for a transitional period until December 31, 2027, for the National Assembly to amend the law.

The ruling aims to prevent chaos that could arise from an immediate invalidation of the law while acknowledging its unconstitutionality. The court decided to maintain the provision until the deadline for legislative changes.

The case stems from the late Park Mo's involvement in the so-called 'Yeosu-Suncheon Incident,' where he was sentenced to prison for violating a proclamation and was reportedly killed without legal proceedings by military and police forces in Daejeon around June 28 to July 17, 1950. Another individual, Ji Mo, was sentenced to 15 years in prison for inciting rebellion and obstructing public duties, with that ruling upheld.

Relatives of Park and Ji filed for a retrial, but their requests were denied by the court, which ruled they did not qualify as eligible petitioners under the criminal procedure law. They subsequently sought a constitutional review of the law, which was also dismissed, leading to their appeal to the Constitutional Court.

Article 424, Section 4 states that only the spouse, direct descendants, or siblings of a convicted individual who has died or is mentally incapacitated may request a retrial. The key issue in this case was whether the provision infringed on the rights of other relatives.

The court noted, "While there may be reasonable grounds for defining the scope of retrial petitioners, applying this provision without considering the unique circumstances of civilian victimization cases and significant human rights violations is excessively focused on legal stability, neglecting the principles of fair and just trials. This represents a departure from the legislative authority concerning the right to petition for a trial."

The court further explained, "It is difficult to argue that the need for legal stability, achieved by maintaining a conviction in exceptionally rare cases where the state has violated its duty to protect fundamental rights, outweighs the necessity to safeguard the rights of relatives who are not spouses, direct descendants, or siblings to seek a retrial."

Regarding the ruling of unconstitutionality, the court stated, "If we were to simply declare the provision unconstitutional and nullify it immediately, it would create a legal vacuum, leaving spouses, direct descendants, or siblings of deceased individuals with no basis to request a retrial in similar cases."

However, Justices Jeong Hyung-sik and Jo Han-chang expressed dissent, stating, "The provision limits retrial petitioners to the deceased's close relatives, which aims to balance the need for specific definitions in trials with legal stability and efficient use of judicial resources, and it cannot be deemed arbitrary legislation."

A court official remarked, "If legislative improvements are made in line with this ruling, it is expected that victims of civilian victimization cases and significant human rights violations will be able to restore their honor through retrials, contributing to national unity and democratic development by reconciling with the past."