The National Human Rights Commission is facing escalating internal conflict over whether to revoke its recommendation from last year that guaranteed defense rights for Yoon Suk Yeol during his impeachment trial. Progressive commissioners are demanding an apology and the revocation of the previous decision, while conservative members argue that revisiting a concluded matter undermines the commission's independence and legal stability.
According to Yonhap News on July 13, the commission discussed a motion titled 'Revocation of the Recommendation on President Yoon Suk Yeol's Defense Rights and Public Apology' during its 13th plenary session, which was jointly proposed by five members, including permanent commissioners Lee Sook-jin and Oh Young-geun, as well as non-permanent members So Ra-mi, Oh Wan-ho, and Jo Suk-hyun.
The motion aims to reassess and revoke the commission's recommendation made in February last year, which stated that due process and defense rights should be guaranteed during Yoon's impeachment trial.
On February 10, 2025, the commission voted 6-4 in favor of a motion asserting the need to ensure due process and defense rights for the former president during the impeachment proceedings.
During the recent meeting, the divisions among commissioners regarding the previous decision were evident. Conservative members contended that it is inappropriate to revoke a decision that was made and executed through proper procedures. Non-permanent member Han Seok-hoon stated, 'The decision was made lawfully, and the recommendation has been executed, so it cannot lose its effect retroactively; thus, a new vote would be invalid.'
Non-permanent member Kang Jeong-hye also pointed out that re-evaluating the same issue could undermine legal stability and trust, violating the principle of non bis in idem.
They particularly criticized the push to revoke the recommendation after the replacement of commissioners who had supported the original decision, labeling it as 'political coercion.'
In contrast, the progressive commissioners who proposed the revocation argued that the previous judgment by the commission compromised its independence and political neutrality and must be corrected.
Lee Sook-jin emphasized, 'It is the responsibility of the human rights commissioners to rectify the (incorrect) motion they voted on,' describing it as a discussion of 'rectifying past mistakes.'
Non-permanent member Jo Suk-hyun stressed, 'This is not about expressing opinions to the Constitutional Court again, but rather evaluating whether the past decision harmed the commission's independence and political neutrality and correcting the mistakes.'
Non-permanent member Oh Wan-ho argued that the commission, which should hold accountable those infringing on citizens' rights, instead appeared to be defending them, highlighting the need for re-evaluation.
After approximately two and a half hours of discussion, the chairperson decided not to present the motion for a vote at the plenary session. The chairperson stated, 'The matter is significant and requires legal review,' adding that it would not be presented today and would be discussed later.
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.