As the government and ruling party push to abolish the prosecutorial supplementary investigation rights, the Supreme Prosecutors Office and the Justice Ministry have effectively submitted opposing opinions to the National Assembly.
On July 8, legal sources reported that the Supreme Prosecutors Office submitted a review opinion through the Justice Ministry in response to a request from the National Assembly.
In the opinion, the Supreme Prosecutors Office strongly argued for the necessity of maintaining supplementary investigations, stating that they are a core responsibility to protect citizens' fundamental rights and an effective means of judicial oversight.
The Supreme Prosecutors Office directly refuted the ruling party's justification for the amendment, which is based on the principle of 'separation of investigation and prosecution.' They asserted that supplementary investigations conducted by prosecutors are essential for determining whether to prosecute cases referred by the police, thus not contradicting the separation principle but rather being crucial for maintaining a solid prosecution.
Concerns were also raised that prohibiting direct supplementary investigations by prosecutors and allowing only 'requests for supplementary investigations' could lead to serious practical side effects.
The Supreme Prosecutors Office stated, "Supplementary investigations are the quickest means to correct delays or errors in police investigations," warning that failing to recognize this could result in a so-called 'case ping-pong' between prosecutors and police, ultimately harming innocent citizens.
Additionally, the Supreme Prosecutors Office deemed the provision in the amendment regarding the exclusion of officials for non-compliance with supplementary investigation requests to be ineffective. The amendment allows prosecutors to request the replacement of police officers who do not comply without just cause, but some legal experts argue that the exceptions are too broad, potentially making it impossible to handle cases amid disagreements between the two agencies.
Furthermore, the Supreme Prosecutors Office called for the abolition of the police's 'non-prosecution decision authority,' which is central to the current adjustment of investigation rights, and advocated for the reintroduction of the 'full case transfer system,' arguing that prosecution and non-prosecution are two sides of the same coin, necessitating that prosecutors, as external quasi-judicial bodies, oversee the legality of all investigation results.
The Supreme Prosecutors Office also clearly opposed granting investigative police officers the authority to conclude investigations, citing risks of 'confirmation bias' and 'self-justification.'
Moreover, the Supreme Prosecutors Office expressed concerns regarding the proposal to establish a 'prosecution review committee' composed of ordinary citizens, arguing that the lack of legal accountability for committee members could lead to a structural issue of 'discrepancy between authority and responsibility.'
The Justice Ministry also supported the Supreme Prosecutors Office's stance. In an opinion submitted to the National Assembly, the Justice Ministry stated, "If supplementary investigations are abolished, it could hinder the protection of citizens' rights and the relief of crime victims," aligning with the views of the Supreme Prosecutors Office.
The Justice Ministry further pointed out practical confusion arising from the abolition of prosecutors' authority to direct warrant execution and issues related to undermining the confidentiality of investigations if pre-search hearings are introduced, urging the National Assembly to proceed with caution in its legislative efforts.
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.