Will the government take responsibility for the problem of sex trafficking in military camptowns? Ahead of the final verdict |
By Narang
Published on Jan. 18,
2017
Translated by Marilyn
Hook
The final verdict in the lawsuit brought by ‘comfort women’ from US
military camptowns [in South Korea] who seek compensation from the Republic of
Korea is due on January 20th. It’s been two years since the case
began on June 25, 2014.
One hundred and twenty-two US military camptown ‘comfort women’ claim that
“the state created the camptowns, took the lead in developing and maintaining
them through measures like ‘purification policies’, and encouraged and
facilitated sex trafficking among camptown women in a variety of ways.” (For
more information, see our [Korean-only] article “Government Encouraged Selling Sex
to US Military”.)
The plaintiffs maintain that in the process, the government violated the
women’s human rights by forcing them to receive check-ups and treatment for
sexually-transmitted diseases, confining them in prison-like STD treatment
centers, and other actions. It also carried out patriotism education in which
the women were praised as ‘patriots earning foreign currency’ and encouraged to
engage in sex trafficking with members of the American military.
Because the government’s actions were illegal under domestic and
international laws banning sex trafficking, the plaintiffs are asking for 10
million won (around 8,700 USD) per person as compensation for the human rights
violations and mental anguish they suffered.
The plaintiffs, who are mostly in their 60s and 70s, have traveled long
distances to attend every day of the trial. Two of them have passed away since
the complaint was filed.
On November 18th of last year, the plaintiffs’ attorney Kim Jin
(of the law firm Jihyang) made her final arguments in open court at the Seoul
District Court. The rest of this article summarizes four issues of the case
based on these arguments.
①‘The state merely
managed the dangers’ vs. ‘The state violated domestic/international law’
 |
| The “Camptown Purification Policy” document,
hand-signed by President Park Jung-hee on May 2, 1977. (Made public in 2013 by Assemblywoman Yu Seung-hui of the Together Democratic Party) |
In response, the Republic of Korea claims “The state, with consideration
for the women’s livelihood and other factors, condoned sex trafficking, which
was prevalent at that time, within a certain scope. The state also managed
several of the dangers, particularly sexually-transmitted diseases, that can occur
through sex trafficking.”
In the case of managing sexually-transmitted diseases, the state claims
that it took the large potential damages of sexually-transmitted diseases into
account and implemented preventative measures and education, and that forcing
treatment on camptown women who had been infected was done in accordance with
the Infectious Diseases Prevention Act (1954) and thus had a legal basis. In
this way, the government argues that its ‘condoning’ and ‘managing the dangers
of’ camptown sex trafficking cannot be considered illegal actions for which it
must give compensation.
But the plaintiffs claim that it was clearly illegal behavior in violation
of the domestic and international laws of that time. The constitution
stipulates ‘protection of the basic rights of citizens’ as one of the state’s
duties. The current Act on the Prevention of Prostitution also charges the
national and regional governments with protecting victims of sex trafficking.
Yet far from protecting the camptown ‘comfort women’, the state put them in
danger by forming the camptowns and encouraging sex trafficking.
The ‘Prevention of Prostitution Act’ enacted in 1961 (and repealed in
2004) and the ‘Act
on the Punishment of Intermediating in Sex Trade and Associated Acts’ enacted
in 2004 both prohibit encouraging, peddling, or providing a place for sex
trafficking. Therefore, the state’s encouraging and facilitating sex
trafficking in the camptowns was a clear violation of the law.
This also violates an international treaty.
Article 1 of the ‘Convention for the
Suppression of the Traffic in Persons and of the Exploitation of the
Prostitution of Others’, which took effect in 1962, states:
“The Parties to the
present Convention agree to punish any person who, to gratify the passions of
another:
(1) Procures, entices or leads away, for
purposes of prostitution, another person, even with the consent of that person;
(2) Exploits the prostitution of another person,
even with the consent of that person.”
Article 2 also stipulates punishment for a
person who “keeps or manages, or knowingly finances or takes part in the
financing of a brothel” or “knowingly lets or rents a building or other place
or any part thereof for the purpose of the prostitution of others”.
The
plaintiffs argue that the actions of the government of the Republic of Korea
were in violation of all of these clauses.
② ‘A
personal choice, not the government’s responsibility’ vs. ‘an abandonment of
the duty to protect citizens’
The
government asks, “Why are the plaintiffs asking the state for compensation when
they ‘voluntarily’ entered the camptowns and engaged in sex trafficking?”
However,
the plaintiffs question this idea of ‘voluntariness’. They claim, “Even if a
person begins an action voluntarily, if they do not continue it in a situation
in which they may freely stop or leave, it is not commonly seen as a voluntary
action.” This is also the reason that, though sex trafficking is illegal under
current law, the government does not punish victims of the sex trade but
invalidates debts that are based on advance payment for sex trafficking.
Kim
Jin, attorney for the plaintiffs, said the following:
“The
government could sufficiently comprehend the dangers inherent in sex
trafficking – that is, that human rights would be violated and individual
dignity would be damaged - and though it had a duty to take steps to protect
the women according to the ‘Prevention of Prostitution Act’ or the
international treaty, it did not do so. Instead, the government encouraged,
facilitated and even made use of camptown sex trafficking, maintaining Korea-US
relations and enjoying the benefits of the US dollars that the plaintiffs
earned.”
Ms.
Jin thundered, “Is the state’s behavior something that our society should permit?”
 |
| The STD-treatment center called “Monkey House”. It was established in the early 1970s and the majority of its patients were camptown women. © Durebang |
The
plaintiffs also argue that the government has a duty to protect even those
citizens who have put themselves at risk. For example, when someone
accidentally starts a fire, the fire department comes, puts outs the fire, and
helps that person. The plaintiffs argue that “If the state fails in its duty to
protect citizens due to negligence, it must take responsibility for that
negligence. Even if it were clear that the plaintiffs put themselves at risk,
one cannot deny that the government has a responsibility to provide
compensation because it did not fulfill its obligation to prevent the harm
caused by sex trafficking and to protect sex trafficking victims.”
③ ‘The
statute of limitations has passed’ vs. ‘the statute of limitations argument is
a misuse of power’
The
third issue is the controversy surrounding the statute of limitations.
The
government of the Republic of Korea argued, “The plaintiffs are mainly talking
about the state’s actions from the 1950s to the 1970s or 1980s. These were 20
or 30 years ago. The document preservation period (which is at most 10 years)
at each government office has passed, so most of the documents (that could be
used as evidence) have been destroyed. There is no choice but to apply the
principle of the statute of limitations.”
But
the plaintiffs argue that the government’s ‘statute of limitations
counter-argument’ must not be accepted.
The
first reason is that the damages caused by the state are ongoing. Though their
scale has been decreased and their methods have changed, camptowns still exist,
and the mental harm that the Republic of Korea’s illegal actions caused the
plaintiffs continues on to this day.
Additionally,
the plaintiffs argue that “the ‘statute of limitations counter-argument’ is a
misuse of power”. It is bizarre for the state, which neglected its duty to
protect citizens and engaged in large-scale, organized, and long-term illegal
behavior, to start talking now about the statute of limitations. It is also a
misuse of power to claim that the statute of limitations has passed without
considering the fact that the particular harm suffered by victims of sexual
crimes takes a long time to acknowledge and begin speaking about.
Ms.
Kim also said, “Previous judgments about the starting point of reckoning of a
statue of limitations apply to this case.” She explained, “A previous judgment
by the Supreme Court found that, in cases in which it is difficult to know
objectively or without error whether a violation of the claimant’s rights
occurred, the starting point must be considered the time at which the
occurrence of the right to make a claim can be known objectively, like the
announcement of the verdict.” The plaintiffs argue, “The reckoning of the
statue of limitations for this case must be decided by the verdict.”
④
‘There is no objective evidence’ vs. ‘recognize the credibility and value of
the group’s testimony’
Throughout the case, the Republic of Korea has said,
“There is no objective evidence that shows the government’s culpability.” More
specifically, “Besides their testimony, there are no objective materials that
can prove what the plaintiffs lives were like in detail inside the camptowns,
how the state’s responsibility for illegal acts concerns each individual
plaintiff, etc.”
 |
The first testimony record by a US military camptown
‘comfort woman’: Hidden Truths of the US Military Comfort Woman Camptowns (Planned by Sae Woom Tor, edited by
Kim Hyeon-seok, testimony given by Kim Jeong-ja,
revised edition released in 2013, Hanul Books) |
But
Ms. Jin says that the 120 camptown women’s testimony has credibility and
objective value.
The
reasons for this are that their statements are very detailed and truthful, the
contents are consistent with each other and with available official documents,
they have no reason to risk social stigma by lying, it is difficult to imagine
what benefit there is to revealing themselves to be camptown ‘comfort women’,
and finally, that they gave testimony despite the social judgment and
denigration, family trouble, and other enormous disadvantages of doing so.
Ms.
Kim said, “Even though the plaintiffs’ lives are individual matters, their
statements describe these lives in ways that are similar to each other and that
reflect the structure of society at that time. The plaintiffs’ experiences are
the clearest forms of evidence that show that the Republic of Korea’s
condoning, abetting in, and encouraging camptown sex trafficking caused equal
harm to the majority of the victims.”
She
revealed that “the plaintiffs’ testimony was [the result of] a difficult
decision to lay bare everything about their existences at the last moments of
their lives” and appealed to the court to “examine the plaintiffs’ statements
especially closely”.
In
addition to the four legal issues explained above, the defendants’ claim that
“the particular illegal acts of individual civil servants must be [more
clearly] specified” conflicts with the plaintiffs’ argument that “this incident
must not be limited to holding the state responsible for the illegal acts of
individual civil servants but be seen as general unlawful behavior by the state
itself that includes civil servants’ illegal policy planning, making, and
enforcement.”
The
verdict will be delivered on January 20th at 2 p.m. in room 466 of
the Seoul Central District Court.
*Original
article: http://ildaro.com/sub_read.html?uid=7740)%EB%A5%BC
No comments:
Post a Comment