COMMITTEE ON THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD

Thirty-second session

SUMMARY RECORD OF THE 838th MEETING

Held at the Palais Wilson, Geneva,

on Wednesday, 15 January 2003, at 10 a.m.

Chairperson: Mr. DOEK

CONTENTS

CONSIDERATION OF REPORTS OF STATES PARTIES (continued)

Second periodic report of the Republic of Korea

The meeting was called to order at 10 a.m.

CONSIDERATION OF REPORTS OF STATES PARTIES (agenda item 4) (continued)

Second periodic report of the Republic of Korea (CRC/C/70/Add.14; CRC/C/Q/REPKO/2; CRC/C/RESP/26)

At the invitation of the Chairperson, the members of the delegation of the Republic of Korea took places at the Committee table.

Mr. CHUNG Eui-yong (Republic of Korea) said that his delegation welcomed the opportunity to engage in a constructive dialogue with the Committee. He was confident that an exchange of opinions would be fruitful. The award of the Nobel Peace Prize to former President Kim Dae‑jung in 2000 showed his Government’s commitment to the cause of human rights. There was, however, always room for improvement and he trusted that the Committee’s recommendations would help enhance the situation of children in his country.

Mr. MOON Kyung-tae (Republic of Korea) said that non-governmental organizations (NGOs) had provided valuable assistance in the preparation of the report.

The economic reforms introduced following the 1997 financial crisis that had struck his country along with many others had involved large-scale redundancies, with the result that many workers’ families had suffered. The Government had endeavoured to minimize their pain as far as possible by, for example, expanding social welfare provisions to help those, including children, who had been hurt the most by the reforms. The situation was complicated by the fact that, until a lasting peace was established with the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, a solid security stance must be maintained. Defence expenditure would therefore continue to take up a considerable portion of the national budget. The committee that would oversee the transition between President Kim and his successor, Mr. Roh, would prioritize future policy tasks. The President Elect had, however, pledged to put an end to discrimination on the grounds of sex, nationality, disability, illegal status or educational background.

Over the past five years, a number of legislative and institutional measures had been implemented to strengthen the protection of children’s rights. The Child Welfare Act had undergone a sweeping overhaul, with more emphasis given to non-discrimination and the right to life, survival and development. The issue of child abuse had also been tackled. The Special Act for the Punishment of Domestic Violence, which had been in force since July 1998, contained a separate section on violence against children. It also took into consideration the serious impact of repeated domestic violence on the formation of a child’s personality. The Act on Protection of Youth from Sexual Exploitation, which dated from February 2000, guaranteed the human rights of children under 19. The National Human Rights Commission, established in 2001, had made substantial efforts to protect and promote children’s rights. The Ministry of Gender Equality, established in 2000, had as part of its mandate the prevention of domestic and sexual violence. Lastly, the Comprehensive Plan for Child Protection and Rearing contained 48 measures to enhance children’s rights, improve their health and welfare, strengthen their safety, protect them from harmful environments and support proper child-rearing.

Since the submission of the initial report, the Civil Act and the Nationality Act had been revised in line with the articles of the Convention that dealt with the right to name and nationality. The revised Civil Act contained the provision that a child whose father was a foreigner should take the mother’s surname and be registered as such. Meanwhile under the Nationality Act, a child born of either a Korean father or a Korean mother could acquire Korean nationality. The Act had also been amended to allow a child to retain dual nationality until the age of 18.

The Government had put in place measures to protect children disadvantaged by the dismissal of their parents from the workplace. The most important measure had been an expansion in the number of recipients of livelihood assistance benefits, 25 per cent of whom were children. Meal services had been provided for malnourished children in schools and welfare institutions, while the school lunch programme initiated in 1992 had been expanded to cover all elementary schools from 1998 and high schools from 2001. Care in residential institutions, which were subject to regular inspection by local officials, was provided for children deprived of their families. Manpower, finance, management and programming in such institutions were evaluated every three years. The Government and non-governmental organizations had also provided expenses and training for foster parents. Although fostering was still uncommon, every effort was being made to expand such an alternative to institutional care and 16 foster family support centres were to be established, beginning in 2003. Foster care by relatives had also been promoted. In addition, a pilot group-home project had been set up, with a view to replacing dormitory homes by smaller group homes. There were currently 32 group homes in operation.

Children under the age of 6 were given regular health checks and, since 1997, mass metabolism screening, which had formerly been available only for low-income families, had been expanded to cover all newborn children. Under the revised Employment Insurance Act, maternity leave had been extended from 60 to 90 days and temporary leave benefits for childcare had been introduced in 2001. Under the Youth Protection Act, the Commission on Youth Protection, in consultation with the Ministry of Health and Welfare, would place young people victimized by drug abuse in national and public hospitals for treatment and rehabilitation. Under the second Five-Year Plan for the Development of Welfare for the Disabled, which had started in 2003, early childcare services were to be initiated free of charge. Furthermore, under the Child Welfare Act, centres for the prevention of child abuse had been established in 2001. One national centre and 17 local centres were currently in operation. One of their main responsibilities was to operate a 24-hour telephone hotline for reporting child abuse.

The number of students per class had been reduced to 35. To achieve that aim, 12.35 trillion won was to be invested between 2001 and 2004 to build 1,202 new schools and 12,304 classrooms. Free middle-school education in urban areas was being expanded and by 2004 all middle-school students would benefit from free education. Early education and care support for 5-year-olds belonging to low-income families would be expanded in the interest of equal educational opportunity in early childhood.

Measures had been taken to protect juvenile workers and other vulnerable children. Following its ratification of the International Labour Organization (ILO) Minimum Age Convention, 1973 (No. 138), the Government had revised the Labour Standards Act, raising the minimum age for workers from 13 to 15. It had also introduced the Act on Protection of Youth from Sexual Exploitation, which outlawed sex crimes involving young people. Moreover, the Commission on Youth Protection was authorized to publicize personal information on sex offenders.

Mr. CITARELLA, after commending the comprehensiveness of the report and the written replies, noted that the Government had signed the two Optional Protocols to the Convention and expressed the hope that it would shortly be able to ratify them. He also noted that, in view of the steady improvement in the economy since 1997, the Government should be in a position to increase the budget allocations for the protection of children, in accordance with article 4 of the Convention.

A disturbing aspect of life in the Republic of Korea was the restriction on the freedom of expression and association and he requested the delegation to provide the Committee with further information in that regard.

According to the written replies, the National Human Rights Commission had been created in 2001 by the National Human Rights Commission Act. What were the powers and the structure of the Commission? It would be interesting to learn whether it had a specific responsibility with regard to child rights and whether it was operating effectively. He observed that, although the State party had indicated its intentions to set up a national committee on the rights of the child and a children’s rights coordinating committee, no such bodies had yet been created.

The Committee was satisfied with the overall efforts that had been made to improve implementation of the Convention. He welcomed, in particular, the enactment in 1998 of the New Youths’ Charter and would appreciate additional information on why the original Charter had been revised and the changes that had been made.

The Committee took note of the statement made by the State party in its report that the reservations to articles 9 (3), 21 (a) and 40 (2) (b) (v) were not considered to have a great influence on children’s rights. However, in its concluding observations following consideration of the State party’s initial report (CRC/C/15/Add.51), the Committee had encouraged the Government to continue reviewing its reservations to those articles, with a view to withdrawing them. He would be interested to know if any progress had been made.

He welcomed the fact that a brochure had been disseminated to schools and relevant organizations to increase awareness of the provisions of the Convention. However, various sources revealed that general knowledge of the Convention was still very poor. Details should be provided of how the Government intended to improve the situation.

He noted with satisfaction the introduction of legislative measures such as the Framework Act on Juveniles and the Labour Standards Act, which strengthened the protection of children and contributed towards harmonizing national law with the provisions of the Convention. Did the Government intend to carry out a full review of all legislation, to ensure that all provisions were in conformity with the Convention? He expressed concern that,

although the Convention and other international instruments could be invoked before the courts, such instruments had a status only equal to domestic law. He wondered whether any problems arose as a result when drafting legislation.

He regretted that many of the previous recommendations made by the Committee had not received sufficient attention. He was particularly disappointed that no legislative measures had been adopted with a view to ensuring an equal minimum age of consent to marriage for girls and boys and would like to know whether the Government was currently looking into the matter. He would also like further information about the procedures for adoption and foster care, especially in terms of the limitations placed on children with regard to meeting their biological parents.

He expressed concern that accidents were the main cause of death in children aged between 1 and 9. The State party should indicate what action it had taken to prevent accidents both in the home and on the roads.

On the right of association and the right to the freedom of expression, he noted that, despite the fact that over half of all schools had student associations, students had very little opportunity to participate in the running of their schools. He further noted that, according to school regulations, students were prohibited from taking part in political activities.

He expressed concern that there was no general policy on the protection of children with disabilities. Many faced discrimination at home and in school. He was equally concerned about the ongoing problem of corporal punishment, which was not prohibited by law and which was, allegedly, widely practiced in schools.

The CHAIRPERSON invited the members of the Committee to put questions to the delegation concerning general measures of implementation and the definition of the child.

Ms. CHUTIKUL said she would be interested to learn how the State party defined the term “youths” and whether it included children. The information provided by the Government indicated that many youth-related bodies had been created, yet there were no equivalent bodies for children. She noted that different ministries were charged with different aspects of child protection. It would be useful to know whether there was a national coordinating body. Further information should be provided about the Children’s Rights Coordination Committee. Had the Committee been created on an ad hoc basis solely for the purposes of preparing the report? Was there a permanent body to oversee the implementation of the Convention?

A national plan of action for children had been included in the child welfare section of the Five-Year Social and Economic Development Plan for the period 1998‑2002. A Five-Year Plan for Youth Rearing had also been established in 1998. She would like to know whether any new plans of action had been introduced and how such plans were designed. Further information should also be provided about the National Human Rights Commission. For example, it would be useful to know how many complaints it received. Had any of the State party’s research institutions developed a set of indicators to monitor and evaluate the situation of children?

Ms. OUEDRAOGO said she was encouraged by the State party’s efforts to consider withdrawing its reservations to the Convention and was hopeful that the process would have a positive outcome. She asked to what extent children had access to the National Human Rights Commission. Had there been any cases whereby a child had brought a complaint before the Commission regarding a violation of his or her rights? On the issue of the dissemination of the Convention, it would be interesting to learn whether the Government intended to incorporate the Convention into school curricula. She expressed concern that many people were still unaware of the Convention and would like to know what steps would be taken to improve the situation. Information should also be provided about the training of professionals.

She would be interested to learn to what extent NGOs had participated in the preparation of the State party’s second periodic report.

The State party had signed the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the involvement of children in armed conflicts. When did the Government intend to ratify it? She would like to know the minimum age for participation in armed conflicts and whether children under the age of 18 could be recruited into the armed forces. What measures were in place to protect children in that respect? She would also like to know what was being done to ensure an equal minimum age of consent to marriage for girls and boys. She observed that there was no consensus on banning corporal punishment in schools. Had the Government made any efforts to raise public awareness of the negative impact of corporal punishment and of alternative methods of punishment?

Ms. KHATTAB asked what measures the Government had adopted to prepare its children for a culture of peace, especially in view of the potential reunification with the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. How much of the State budget was allocated to such measures? She expressed concern about the rights of the girl child and about the cultural bias against children with disabilities. She wondered to what extent culture and tradition constituted an obstacle to the implementation of the provisions of the Convention. She would also like to know the Government’s views on empowering children by providing them with Internet access.

She expressed satisfaction with the international cooperation programme and would like to know the extent to which it was used to promote the rights of the child. She would also like to know what the mandate of the Children’s Rights Coordination Committee was and wondered how its role had been affected by the establishment of the National Human Rights Commission.

Ms. TIGERSTEDT-TÄHTELÄ enquired whether the Republic of Korea could give higher priority to child-related policies, in compliance with article 4 of the Convention, given that economic indicators painted a fairly positive picture. Could the reporting State provide more information about the country’s economic outlook? It would also be useful to know whether the Government had adopted a comprehensive strategy for helping low-income families and for reducing poverty in the long term. Information should be provided about the role of civil society, the private sector and NGOs in the provision of social services.

Ms. KARP observed that, according to the written replies, the Government’s reluctance to withdraw its reservation to article 21 (a) was based on the fact that, in most cases, adoptive parents had a strong tendency not to disclose adoption because they wanted the child to be registered as their biological child. That tendency was attributed to the traditional culture. However, other countries had devised processes that both protected adoptive parents’ privacy and took the best interests of the child into account. She failed to understand why the Government of the Republic of Korea could not do the same. The Government clearly could not disregard culture or traditions when promoting the rights of the child, but neither could it wait for adoptive parents’ approval before guaranteeing that the best interests of the child were taken into account.

In addition to clarifying how many cases were addressed by the National Human Rights Commission, the State party should indicate the nature of those cases. It would also be useful to know how children were informed that they could approach the Commission if the need arose even if they were afraid of breaking cultural barriers.

With regard to statistics, she noted on page 15 of the written replies that a children’s rights index would be used in future for evaluating progress in children’s rights. In that exercise, would the Government make use of studies produced by NGOs with experience in the field of children’s rights? She wondered whether it would be necessary to change legislation to ensure that statistics covered children up to the age of 18.

She also asked whether officials and parliamentarians received training on the rights set out in the Convention. Would the Government consider publishing a manual for parliamentarians, as had been done in her own country, explaining how domestic legislation could be brought into line with the Convention?

The CHAIRPERSON asked the delegation why the Republic of Korea continued to have a reservation to article 40, paragraph 2 (b) (v), of the Convention. Paragraph 193 of the country report specifically stated that accused persons could appeal to reopen a case. If the right to appeal thus existed, what was the point of the reservation?

He also sought further information on the national budget. The figures in the tables on page 2 of the written replies suggested that the child health care budget, allocations for social welfare, family and child support, and the budget for the protection of children amounted to less than 1 per cent of the overall budget. Could the delegation comment? Did that mean that parents paid for the health care of their children themselves? If so, how much did the average Korean family spend on health care?

The meeting was suspended at 11.35 a.m. and resumed at 11.50 a.m.

Mr. MOON Kyung-tae (Republic of Korea), replying to the comments on the National Human Rights Commission, said that that body played an important role in monitoring and investigating human rights violations. The Commission also made recommendations which, although not binding, had considerable influence in society. To cite one example, a disabled person had recently filed a complaint with the Commission, claiming that his right to free access to the subway had been violated. The Commission had then issued a recommendation to the Government, which had subsequently undertaken to provide better facilities for disabled persons at subway stations. Although the Commission did not have a specific mandate for children’s rights, promotion of such rights was part of its work. Since its establishment in 2001 the Commission had made every effort to protect children’s rights. As noted on page 14 of the written replies, it had reviewed the Government’s Comprehensive Plan for Child Protection and Rearing; investigated the human rights protection programme for children within the juvenile justice system; published a book for children on protecting the human rights of abandoned children and preventing child abuse; produced a basic guide book for human rights education for teachers and provided guidelines on teaching methods for human rights education; and was reviewing a complaint of discrimination against a disabled child who had been refused admission to kindergarten.

Mr. PARK Kyong-seo (Republic of Korea), said that the National Human Rights Commission, of which he was Senior Commissioner, had received more than 3,000 complaints since its establishment in November 2001, only one of them involving child abuse. It was to be hoped that further cases concerning children would be referred to the Commission.

Textbooks published by the Commission for use in schools stressed that children were a subject of human rights, and not an object of charity to be protected.

In addition to investigating complaints, the Commission could make recommendations for amending legislation affecting children’s rights. A survey was being conducted to identify the issues concerned.

Ms. TIGERSTEDT-TÄHTELÄ asked whether the Commission had made any proposals for change following its review of the Comprehensive Plan for Child Protection and Rearing and, if so, how those proposals had been received by the Government.

Ms. KARP wondered whether the Commission had sufficient budget and professional staff to cope with the more than 3,000 complaints received and to bring about changes in traditional attitudes towards children. How were children made aware of the Commission’s existence and encouraged to make complaints?

Ms. CHUTIKUL asked whether any of the Commissioners were specialists in children’s rights.

Mr. PARK Kyong-seo (Republic of Korea), said that, unfortunately, none of the 11 commissioners was a children’s rights specialist. It was to be hoped that that concern could be accommodated in the future. The Commission’s staff of 215 was adequate for handling the more than 3,000 complaints. The Commission did not have a separate committee specifically responsible for children’s rights, but when a complaint of human rights violations concerning children was received, it came immediately before the Commission’s committee on discrimination.

Korean society was very patriarchal and Confucionist, hence the crucial importance of awareness-raising and human rights education. The Commission’s top priority in 2002 had been the problem of abandoned children. Recommendations on children’s rights would be submitted in March to the Government authorities concerned.

Mr. CITARELLA inquired whether a children’s rights coordination committee currently existed or was planned.

Mr. MOON Kyung-tae (Republic of Korea) said that a coordinating committee had in fact been established to work with NGOs. But there was no national committee for monitoring or for disseminating information on the Convention. Consideration was being given to setting up a permanent body for that purpose.

The Ministry of Health and Social Welfare had worked to raise public awareness of the Convention by placing the second periodic report on its home page. Other efforts had also been made, but admittedly, they had not been sufficient. His delegation had taken due note of how a manual for parliamentarians could be useful in bringing domestic legislation into line with the Convention.

As noted on page 13 of the written replies, his Government had been reviewing its reservations to the Convention, but deemed it premature to withdraw them as there were still conflicts with domestic law. The Government would continue to work closely with civil society to promote public opinion in favour of their withdrawal.

The CHAIRPERSON said that the explanation in paragraphs 12 and 193 of the Republic of Korea’s reservation to article 40, paragraph 2 (b) (v), applied only to members of the armed forces. It was not clear how that concerned children. It seemed that domestic law was already in line with article 40, paragraph 2 (b) (v), and that a reservation was thus superfluous.

Ms. KARP asked why it had not been possible to pass legislation on allowing children to maintain contact with their divorced parents despite the Committee’s recommendation. When did the Government think that such legislation would be passed?

Mr. MOON Kyung-tae (Republic of Korea) said that the Government was in fact considering withdrawal of that reservation, but needed more time. Further discussion was also required before it could withdraw its reservation to article 40, paragraph 2 (b) (v). As for the reservation to article 21 (a), he said that, as pointed out on page 13 of the written replies, adoptive parents had a strong tendency not to disclose adoption but to want the child registered as their biological child. If adoption required authorization from competent authorities, it might discourage potential adoptive parents from going through with adoption. Therefore, although essentially in agreement with the principles of the Convention with regard to the issue of adoption, the Republic of Korea needed more time to implement the relevant provisions in full. The Government was attempting to regularize both domestic and international adoption procedures. He was personally working to change cultural attitudes towards adoption so that adoptive parents no longer insisted on confidentiality and instead openly acknowledged that their child had been adopted.

His Government encouraged NGOs and individual citizens to participate in national policy-making. As noted on page 16 of the written replies, government bodies could set up a consultative committee whose opinions were sought and taken into account at all stages, from policy-making to implementation. NGO representatives must account for 20 per cent of the composition of every consultative committee.

On the question of corporal punishment, he said that, as pointed out on pages 17 and 18 of the written replies, that practice was banned in institutions such as juvenile training schools and care institutions. The head of a school could impose corporal punishment when it was deemed necessary. There were no concrete guidelines on when such punishment was permitted; its use was at the discretion of each school. Some schools had rules on when it was allowed, others banned corporal punishment and some had no rules on the practice. Currently, there was no consensus among teachers’ associations, NGOs, regional offices of education and heads of schools on the question of banning corporal punishment in schools.

The CHAIRPERSON said that the Government was expected to take measures to ban corporal punishment in schools, but it did not seem to be doing so, since the Ministry of Education continued to permit the practice.

Ms. KARP said that, according to information she had received, the use of corporal punishment in schools had once been prohibited but had subsequently been reintroduced. She would be interested to learn why. She asked whether schools were required to consult children and to take information concerning the harmful impact of corporal punishment into account when drawing up rules on the subject. The delegation should also explain whether the Government envisaged following up on the recommendation of the Committee that corporal punishment should be banned.

Mr. CITARELLA said that the Government seemed content with following the general consensus on corporal punishment, rather than taking positive steps to change public attitudes. He wanted to know whether it was common to use such methods of punishment in the home.

Ms. KARP said that it would be useful to seek advice from countries that had banned corporal punishment in spite of public opposition. Experience showed that the promotion of alternative forms of punishment was a key catalyst for change. Since school and family settings were closely interconnected, public awareness campaigns should focus on both those spheres.

Mr. MOON Kyung-tae (Republic of Korea) said that the National Human Rights Commission had concluded that corporal punishment should be prohibited, in view of its potentially damaging psychological impact.

The CHAIRPERSON said that the Government should take that advice very seriously.

Mr. MOON Kyung-tae (Republic of Korea) said that the current data-collection system was inadequate to provide comprehensive details of all children up to the age of 18 years. As noted in the written replies, that was largely due to the fact that most domestic laws, with a few exceptions, did not adopt the definition of the child provided for in the Convention. With a view to rectifying that inadequacy, the Ministry of Welfare and Health had commissioned the development of a national child rights index, to be published for the first time in 2005.

He pointed out that the figures provided for the health care budget in the written replies did not include funds from the comprehensive health insurance scheme.

The social welfare system had been restructured in the wake of the 1997 financial crisis, with the emphasis on time-limited programmes, designed to encourage poor families to move off welfare.

Ms. KARP asked whether new legislation would be required in order to implement the new data‑collection system, and whether the index would be available for consultation by NGOs.

Ms. TIGERSTEDT-TÄHTELÄ asked for further details of the health insurance system, including an explanation of how it was financed.

Mr. MOON Kyung-tae (Republic of Korea) explained that the health insurance scheme covered the entire population. It was financed partially through individual contributions and partially through government subsidies.

Ms. KHATTAB said she would be interested to learn whether different health insurance arrangements were made for children with special needs.

Mr. MOON Kyung-tae (Republic of Korea) said that, under the insurance scheme, the Government subsidized all children with serious disabilities or diseases.

The CHAIRPERSON invited members of the Committee to put questions to the delegation concerning general principles, civil rights and freedoms, and family environment and alternative care.

Mr. CITARELLA expressed concern over the tendency to place children deprived of a family environment into institutions, rather than with members of their extended family or in foster care. Moreover, many such institutions were privately run, and were not subject to Government monitoring.

Ms. TIGERSTEDT-TÄHTELÄ said that the report had failed to mention how children were encouraged to participate in processes concerning them. She asked whether, in the light of the special registration procedures for children born out of wedlock, such children suffered from stigmatization or discrimination.

Ms. KHATTAB said she wanted to know whether children had been involved in preparing or submitting comments on the report. In the light of the claim that the Republic of Korea was composed of only one race, the arrival of foreign children appeared to be a new phenomenon. She would appreciate details of measures taken to prevent discrimination against foreigners. The delegation should also explain whether children born to refugee parents could be registered with the authorities for the purposes of acquiring citizenship.

Ms. OUEDRAOGO asked for details of specific steps to promote the rights of children born out of wedlock. She would like to know how the Government had sought to implement the Sexual Equality Employment Act of 1987. She expressed concern that the ban on screening for the sex of a foetus might constitute a violation of parents’ rights. It would be interesting to learn whether doctors were allowed to make exceptions in cases where the sex of a foetus needed to be known for medical reasons. She asked whether the Government had considered taking a different approach to the problem of selective abortions, for instance by attempting to change public attitudes.

She asked how the child’s right to privacy was protected by law. For example, the delegation should explain whether teachers were bound by rules restricting the use of offensive language, inspections of personal possessions and body searches with regard to children under their supervision.

In the light of rising divorce rates, she asked whether the Government had commissioned a study of the impact that might have on children. For instance, it was unclear whether parents were legally required to contribute financially to the upbringing of their child in the event of a divorce. She also wanted to know how the Government dealt with the increasing number of families raised by children.

Ms. KARP drew attention to information stating that the children of a divorced mother were forced to keep the surname of the father. She would like to know whether children had any choice in that matter. She expressed concern that children’s views were not taken seriously enough, particularly during legal proceedings.

The CHAIRPERSON said he was confused by information provided in the written replies indicating that over 15,000 children had received counselling from the centres for the prevention of child abuse, while only 2,000 cases of abuse had been dealt with. It would be useful to learn under what conditions children were admitted to those centres and what treatment, if any, they received. The delegation should also explain whether the centres were connected to the Agency on Child Abuse and Neglect, a private association established in 1989. Moreover, given the number of children counselled for sexual violence, he failed to understand why just 90 cases of sexual abuse had been reported to police. He asked for precise figures of the number of convictions for child abuse. The delegation should explain whether the perpetrators were dealt with in any other way.

The meeting rose at 1.05 p.m.